*Official* English Football Season 2011-12

[Furball]

Would Spurs not have had quite an expensive squad back then as well, or was it just Gascoigne and Lineker that they spent a (relative) fortune on?

FTR, Liverpool have spent more than Man Utd since the year 2000.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Would Spurs not have had quite an expensive squad back then as well, or was it just Gascoigne and Lineker that they spent a (relative) fortune on?

FTR, Liverpool have spent more than Man Utd since the year 2000.

Paul Stewart would've cost a fair old bit and guess Waddle must've too. They were considered one of the "big five" back then.

& is that net or gross? Man U's net spend is skewed badly because of the fortune they got for Chavnaldo.

 

[Uppercut]

Skewed? Why wouldn't selling Ronaldo count?

 

[Furball]

Paul Stewart would've cost a fair old bit and guess Waddle must've too. They were considered one of the "big five" back then.

& is that net or gross? Man U's net spend is skewed badly because of the fortune they got for Chavnaldo.

Gross spend. I don't do net spend because I think it's a fairly worthless stat

 

[BoyBrumby]

Skewed? Why wouldn't selling Ronaldo count?

Because it's a massive and unique spike in a revenue stream. United actually made a profit in that year (the only tax year in which they have under the Glazers) which was solely down to the Real transfer monies.

It'd actually be interesting to compare the net spends pre- and post-Glazers.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Gross spend. I don't do net spend because I think it's a fairly worthless stat

Interesting. Wouldn't have guess it, tbh.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

You're aware that transfer fees are never paid all up front, right? So United really didn't turn a proft for getting 80m for Ronaldo, as they're probably still receiving payments for it. Unless of course they count as a single income stream for that financial year, which makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

All this only matters if you think that clubs should only be able to spend based on revenue. In which case Manure and Liverpuddle would have won everything for the last 35 years instead of only nearly everything.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You're aware that transfer fees are never paid all up front, right? So United really didn't turn a proft for getting 80m for Ronaldo, as they're probably still receiving payments for it. Unless of course they count as a single income stream for that financial year, which makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not sure what the accountants measure, in all honesty. United's transfers are presumably done in the same route so the published profit/loss figures might take into account outstanding fees to be paid/received.

Not massively arsed either.

 

[Furball]

Interesting. Wouldn't have guess it, tbh.

I was quite suprised how little United had spent, think in season 01/02 they didn't buy anyone and the season Carrick signed he was their only purchase.

 

[social]

You're aware that transfer fees are never paid all up front, right? So United really didn't turn a proft for getting 80m for Ronaldo, as they're probably still receiving payments for it. Unless of course they count as a single income stream for that financial year, which makes no sense whatsoever.

From a tax perspective, unless things have changed, they would have to recognise the 80m in year 1 as it is an unconditional contract

Nonsense but that's the tax man for you

 

[Furball]

I'm not sure what the accountants measure, in all honesty. United's transfers are presumably done in the same route so the published profit/loss figures might take into account outstanding fees to be paid/received.

Not massively arsed either.

Real Madrid would be listed in the accounts as a creditor would they not?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ha, wow. Great free kick from Larsson to win it for the Mackems at the death.

In me dream team too.

 

[cpr]

To be fair though, Blackburn were the first of the modern "bankrolled" clubs, so comparing Man U's net/gross spend to theirs isn't an accurate reflection of how the domestic transfer scene was back then.

Jack Walker's largesse might seem small beer now, but it was unprecedented at the time.

Right OK, shall we change Marks arguement to 'We had to most expensive squad, if you exclude the team that just spunked £20m in 2 years, (and the team who had dominated for the last decade)', and he'll then have a meaningful argument??


Doesn't matter if it was fat Jacks millions, they'd spent the money, they were using it in the Premiership, therefore they had the more expensive squad


As for the tax on Ronaldo thing - I know personal tax you pay in the year you physically receive the money usually (for spread payments over 2 tax years can either declare it in 1 or over 2, whichever benefits you most), can also spread the bill on large sales from pieces that took a long time to create (eg artists use it for their works). I'd be suprised if Corporation tax didnt have the same,


Personally, I do look at net spend over gross (though have used gross over this thread to placate you lot) - If you can buy an asset, quadruple its value, then reinvest that money, then that should be considered, especially if you wouldnt have spent unless you had that sale money in the first place.

 

[sledger]

Haha, Blackburn.

Have got to play Brom and Bolton in their next two games. Both must wins surely. Have Liverpool and Man Utd in the games following.

Odds on Keane surviving?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Right OK, shall we change Marks arguement to 'We had to most expensive squad, if you exclude the team that just spunked £20m in 2 years, (and the team who had dominated for the last decade)', and he'll then have a meaningful argument??

Wasn't commenting on the veracity or otherwise of marc's argument, rather that you saying Man U spent less than Blackburn back in the early-mid 90s would be like a Chav fan saying his team is a model of prudent sustainability because they spend less than Citeh do now.

It's a low bar.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Odds on Keane surviving?

Slim.

The shot of him at the end when the player was down injured might as well have been captioned "Man about to be sacked."

 

[grecian]

Chris foy, Stokes clear MOM here.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not sure why Sky are wetting themselves with excitement over the Stoke/Spurs game - it was ****. Made only watchable by the comedy refereeing.

 

[Nate]

:rolldemeyez:

We may not know what the back of the net is like, but we have the best record at the back. So much for the comments against Liverpool's defenders.