Are we really paupers?

[m100900]

Fergie had to sell to buy only the other way when he had to sell Nistellroy to buy Carrick - he wasn't allowed any more due to their finances. Since Rafa has been here Fergie has always had to sell to buy...

He was only allowed to what he did last summer as he sold a lot of players too and had just won the league. More revisionism.
.

That's one of the most convoluted rationalizations I've ever read - fergie has always had to sell to buy apart from when he's bought without selling ????

you really do talk nonsense, but you put way too much effort into it.

[Sarb]

You're telling me richardson is a £6m player? Hardly ever played

[ELNINO 9]

but thats what keane paid for him to join sunderland

[Cormack74]

Yes true but with that money he was able to buy Carrick - they then won the league. He sold then bought...

I'm pretty sure that a significant chunk of the Carrick fee came from the compensation that the Chavs had to pay for Obi Mikel.

[El Jefecito]

Fergie had to sell to buy only the other way when he had to sell Nistellroy to buy Carrick - he wasn't allowed any more due to their finances. Since Rafa has been here Fergie has always had to sell to buy...

He was only allowed to what he did last summer as he sold a lot of players too and had just won the league. More revisionism.

Sarb - Your stuff about Fergie being lucky that his "old buys" buy his players for inflated prices is conspiracy nonsense and not worth replying to. Their boards have to approve it.

You just make stuff up don't you. Prettty sad really.

[Sarb]

Lol. He sold RvN because he fell out with him...not to buy Carrick. FFS

He got £17m odd for Mikel...who never even played for them

Rash you're talking ****

[El Jefecito]

Lol. He sold RvN because he fell out with him...not to buy Carrick. FFS

He got £17m odd for Mikel...who never even played for them

Rash you're talking ****

Imagine if we got a quid for each time, Rashid posted this BS. We would definitely not be paupers

[rage]

let me put a slightly different angle to this. does anyone really think utd could have spent the money they have if they hadn't sold so well in recent years?

we like to talk about net spend when looking at how much we've 'really spent' its only right that we do the same with utd.

[El Jefecito]

let me put a slightly different angle to this. does anyone really think utd could have spent the money they have if they hadn't sold so well in recent years?

we like to talk about net spend when looking at how much we've 'really spent' its only right that we do the same with utd.

It's twofold as you say they have sold well, buts let face it their revenue blows us out of the water. Could they have bought what they did last year based on sales alone. NO. They've sold well and have leveraged their revenue to have a budget which exceeds us by at least 300%. No?

[Rashid]

Are we paupers? Rafa has spent double NET on a per year basis to that of Houllier. FACT.

[El Jefecito]

Are we paupers? Rafa has spent double NET on a per year basis to that of Houllier. FACT.

Yada yada yada. Has Rafa spent more $ than your number of posts?

Just wondering like!

[Darkon]

I am a bit lost here, what is the whole point of this thread???

Rafa has spent money and so what?

[rage]

I am a bit lost here, what is the whole point of this thread???

Rafa has spent money and so what?

no i think thats the point - rafa's spent money

[El Jefecito]

I am a bit lost here, what is the whole point of this thread???

Rafa has spent money and so what?

Duh! The point is that Rashid is broadcasting his prederlictions.

The rest of us are heaving in laughter from the sidelines. Join us, or do 67 press-ups and try to convince us that muddy waters is class.

[Hass]

I am a bit lost here, what is the whole point of this thread???

Rafa has spent money and so what?

There is no point, Rash is talking **** as usual....