moscowmadeit3 wrote:Laurencio wrote:The guardian:
The Glazers have taken far more out of the club than people realise, in the past 3 seasons Manchester United has had a net-spend of -6M pounds. In contrast Manchester City has spent 253M, and Chelsea has spent 140M pounds. Manchester United in the past 3 years has a netspend that is less than every other big club ( except Arsenal), and even have a lower net spend than Wolves. Since the Glazers took over United has had a lower net-spend than Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham among others (which I already forgot)
So based on evidence Sir Alex and David Gill are fibbing when they say the Glazers haven't affected our spennding power. Note that the net spend does not even take into account our massive revenue stream.
The clubs with a bigger net spend than us, since 2005, are in the following order: City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham, Villa, Sunderland and Stoke. Then there is us, 7th.
Of course our spending power has been affected. I don't believe a word Gill says half the time. Also, I don't believe what Ferguson says regarding transfers and funds.
Gotta say it pisses me off a little... Even after the downpayments of debt and wages we are 70M in the green, and yet we have a relatively weak net spend...
those players owe us 
when he goes on a run 
love this player
