• Current Donation Goals

Michael Tucker

Chelsea 1 Manchester United 0

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Blue_In_Every_Way said:

IMO, and this is strictly my interpretation of things, Mourinho has only really signed Lukaku, Matic, Lindelof, Pogba, Zlatan and Bailly since he has been in charge. Thats not really a lot considering its been 2 years. He certainly hasnt been as scattergun in his approach as Pep and there is an element of truth, IMO, to that much.

Bailly, Matic and Lukaku have been good, Pogba has been inconsistent and Lindelof has been poor. So thats not a bad record IMO. 

I think that this summer will bring a lot of changes for United as  Mourinho shapes the squad even more. And like Droy said, they really do have a lot to build on because only Young and Valencia are oldies.

Sanchez? 

But I get and agree with your overall observation. José has not bought a lot of players, but rather bought a few at larger fees. We on the other hand have bought a lot of average players for mid-sized fees.

United have a gross spend of roughly £295m on 8 new players over two seasons:

Pogba £89m, Bailly £30m, Ibrahimovic (free), Mkhitaryan (£30m), Matic (£40m), Lukaku (£75m), Lindelöf (£31m) and Sanchez (swap with Mkhitaryan)

Conte has in the same time period spent £387m gross on 14 new players:

Bats (£33m), Kanté (£30m), Eduardo (undiscl), Alonso (£23m), Luiz (£34m), Caballero (free), Rüdiger (£29m), Bakayoko (£40m), Morata (£60m), Zappacosta (£23m), Drinkwater (£35m), Barkley (£15m), Emerson (£20m) and Giroud (£18m)

Net spends over the time period;

United 2016-17: £102m

United 2017-18: £136m

Total: £238m

Chelsea 2016-17: £35m

Chelsea 2017-18: £108m

Total: £142m

So United have spent a Pogba more than us net over the two seasons. But it's worth remembering, that a lot of the funds in for us have been for players with little to no future in the first team. 

If we are to look at net spend for the first teams only, the difference is rather small between us and United. 

United's net spend goes up with £7m to £245m.

Our net spend goes up to £210m by only including first team sales of Oscar (£52m), Costa (£50m), Matic (£40m), Aké (£20m), Chalobah (£5m), Begovic (£10m) summing up to sales of £177m.  Hence, we are excluding the sales of Cuadrado, Solanke, Atsu, Traoré, Salah, Djilobodji, Marin and Bamford as they were not part of the first team squad at the time of their sale. 

So for all of you who say Man U has spent so much money and we haven't. Well, here's the proof that we have. We have just done a bad job at recruiting new players! What saves us is the loan player army that have yielded substantial transfer income but with no effect on the first team in terms of lost quality. 

In the same time period:

City: £340m net

Liverpool: -£34m net (I.e. they have sold players for £34m more than they have bought for)

Arsenal: £77m

Tottenham: £27m

The notion that Conte hasn't been backed is the biggest bs ever. Has absolutey no base in reality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when your entire strategy revolves around hoovering up the youth of the World and selling them on for a profit so you can reinvest those funds into your first team that no longer counts? 

Sounds legit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
35 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Sanchez? 

But I get and agree with your overall observation. José has not bought a lot of players, but rather bought a few at larger fees. We on the other hand have bought a lot of average players for mid-sized fees.

United have a gross spend of roughly £295m on 8 new players over two seasons:

Pogba £89m, Bailly £30m, Ibrahimovic (free), Mkhitaryan (£30m), Matic (£40m), Lukaku (£75m), Lindelöf (£31m) and Sanchez (swap with Mkhitaryan)

Conte has in the same time period spent £387m gross on 14 new players:

Bats (£33m), Kanté (£30m), Eduardo (undiscl), Alonso (£23m), Luiz (£34m), Caballero (free), Rüdiger (£29m), Bakayoko (£40m), Morata (£60m), Zappacosta (£23m), Drinkwater (£35m), Barkley (£15m), Emerson (£20m) and Giroud (£18m)

Net spends over the time period;

United 2016-17: £102m

United 2017-18: £136m

Total: £238m

Chelsea 2016-17: £35m

Chelsea 2017-18: £108m

Total: £142m

So United have spent a Pogba more than us net over the two seasons. But it's worth remembering, that a lot of the funds in for us have been for players with little to no future in the first team. 

If we are to look at net spend for the first teams only, the difference is rather small between us and United. 

United's net spend goes up with £7m to £245m.

Our net spend goes up to £210m by only including first team sales of Oscar (£52m), Costa (£50m), Matic (£40m), Aké (£20m), Chalobah (£5m), Begovic (£10m) summing up to sales of £177m.  Hence, we are excluding the sales of Cuadrado, Solanke, Atsu, Traoré, Salah, Djilobodji, Marin and Bamford as they were not part of the first team squad at the time of their sale. 

So for all of you who say Man U has spent so much money and we haven't. Well, here's the proof that we have. We have just done a bad job at recruiting new players! What saves us is the loan player army that have yielded substantial transfer income but with no effect on the first team in terms of lost quality. 

 

 

Incredibly creative accounting. Cuadrado and Traore are two in particular we could have used. Keeping Cuadrado means no need to buy Zappacosta, and keeping Traore might well have meant we sold someone else, or just had a bigger (much needed) squad in the first place. You can't just choose to ignore sales to suit your argument.

When you talk about funds for players with no future in the first team, United will lose almost the entire transfer fee on players like Sanchez and Matic, both 29 at point of sale. Zlatan cost a bomb in wages over 18 months (didn't play in the last 6). At this point in time, the Sanchez buy looks absurd.

And lastly, we won the league last year with 93 points. They have neither won it, nor come close to that total. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Incredibly creative accounting. Cuadrado and Traore are two in particular we could have used. Keeping Cuadrado means no need to buy Zappacosta, and keeping Traore might well have meant we sold someone else, or just had a bigger (much needed) squad in the first place. You can't just choose to ignore sales to suit your argument.

When you talk about funds for players with no future in the first team, United will lose almost the entire transfer fee on players like Sanchez and Matic, both 29 at point of sale. Zlatan cost a bomb in wages over 18 months (didn't play in the last 6). At this point in time, the Sanchez buy looks absurd.

And lastly, we won the league last year with 93 points. They have neither won it, nor come close to that total. 

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are to assess players in and players out for different clubs to determine how well or badly they've strengthen, surely it makes sense to only look at the players who actually had an impact on First Team affairs? Otherwise you are mixing in apples with pears when looking at youth, reserve, loan army players and failed first team signings. 

Our actual net spend is the lower number yes - but that is a misleading number on the spends impact on the first team. The adjusted numbers are a far better representation of how the two clubs have strengthened/weakened the first team squad which really is all we as fans care about (to have as strong first team as possible). I'm not happy that we have a lot of no-hopers hopping around in Europe from one loan to another before finally being sold. Does nothing for me believe it or not.

Our net spend, and subsequent excuses for Conte, becomes even more ridiculous when you compare our net spend to that of Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham - both by using the actual net spend for the club and the net spend for the first team.  

That was my point, not to be creative with the numbers for no reason. 

Droy was my Hero has continuously talked about how the club has operated with different strategies in phases. Last two seasons has been a re-building and investment phase where we bought a lot of young players that seemingly was intended to stay here for the long-term -> Morata, Kanté, Luiz, Alonso, Emerson, Bats, Morata, Barkley, Bakayoko, Rüdiger and Zappacosta. 

We have spent an awful lot of money in this re-building process and only Rüdiger, Alonso and Kanté can come away with any sort of praise really with Morata ok in patches. The money we have spent over the last two seasons is massive compared to our own historical spending, but above all when compared to our main competitors (United, Tottenham, Arsenal and Liverpool). That is seriously bad news for us, given that we won't be able to have another two seasons with the same spend. 

Which is why the coming summer is so important. Get this wrong, and we may fall even further behind and then we may be talking 5+ years before we get back to the top 4 (if at all). 

Edit: You are also talking about chosing which players to include and which to not include - I have given you a logical explanation that was applied consistently on all our new purchases/sales. Were they contributing to the first team or not?

Cuadrado, Traoré, Solanke, Atsu, Salah, Djilobodji, Marin and Bamford managed a combined total of 1,240 PL minutes between 2013-2017 - or the equivalent of a combined 14 games over 4 seasons. 65% of those minutes were given to Salah. You also say Man U have bought lots of players with no re-sale value. Wrong - Ibra was a free transfer at around £100k/week. Sanchez a swap with a player of similar age (Mkhitaryan) and matic a edfensive midfielders who had another 5 years in him at this level. They were bouht for the here and now.

Man U haven't won the league no, but Conte took over a side who had been top 3 for most of the seasons previous (with one exception) while at the same time being given a truck-load of money to strengthen further (which he did). José took over a Man U side who hadn't even been close to compete since Fergie resigned and has strengthen their first team with £35m more than us (but with us having a massive head start). 

The result can be seen from this years table. 

Edited by The_Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are to assess players in and players out for different clubs to determine how well or badly they've strengthen, surely it makes sense to only look at the players who actually had an impact on First Team affairs? Otherwise you are mixing in apples with pears when looking at youth, reserve, loan army players and failed first team signings. 

[SNIP]


What happens to the player originally bought for the loan army but who, due to certain circumstances, finds themselves thrown in to the first team and acquits themselves so well that they remain a squad member? As for the 'failed first team signing', surely the fact they've been signed for the first team means they should be considered, whether they fail or not. If you only count the successes, as you suggest, the whole exercise is rendered utterly pointless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:


1. What happens to the player originally bought for the loan army but who, due to certain circumstances, finds themselves thrown in to the first team and acquits themselves so well that they remain a squad member?

2. As for the 'failed first team signing', surely the fact they've been signed for the first team means they should be considered, whether they fail or not. If you only count the successes, as you suggest, the whole exercise is rendered utterly pointless!

1. He becomes a member of the first team squad that contributes. What else would happen? Again, all I did was remove the players who had not played any part in the first team the season before and players that had not played a minute in years. Hardly controversial when you are looking to see the impact from ins and outs on the first team (I'd have thought, but I seem to have been mistaken).

2. None of the players in the list had clocked minutes the season before. Hence, they did not have a negative impact on Conte's squad - I.e. the club had clearly already discounted them for the future. Also, I'm not counting the successes - I'm counting the players that had any sort of impact on the first team. Many of them have not been successes but have played first team football for us nonetheless. Those players are counted. And in any case, since you seem to take offence on how I have excluded some players and why I did it, the lower net spend figure is still MILES ahead of anything Arsenal, Liverpool or Spurs have spent. So the main point is still valid - Conte has been massively backed in the market. There is no argument to be had that he hasn't. Do you disagree with that? If so, would be interesting to hear why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

So when your entire strategy revolves around hoovering up the youth of the World and selling them on for a profit so you can reinvest those funds into your first team that no longer counts? 

Sounds legit.

We haven't done that for some time.  Stopped by 2014 in order to concentrate on buying trophies for a while.  Since Salah it has been Drogba and Giroud.

 

1 hour ago, The_Ghost said:

Droy was my Hero has continuously talked about how the club has operated with different strategies in phases. Last two seasons has been a re-building and investment phase where we bought a lot of young players that seemingly was intended to stay here for the long-term -> Morata, Kanté, Luiz, Alonso, Emerson, Bats, Morata, Barkley, Bakayoko, Rüdiger and Zappacosta. 

Yes strategies.  But the buy talent strategy was up to 2014 then stopped.  The buy for titles was 2014+ but probably finished in 2017 with Kante, Luiz and Alonso.  Post 2017 it has just been confused.
Since 2017 it has been just a keep the team going, papering over cracks.  Morata I don't see as a development, just a Costa replacement (and asked to play like Costa).  Zappacosts and Emerson and Barkley just seem to be bodies for the squad which the manager didn't really want.  Not round pegs for longtem consideration, not square pegs for square shaped holes, just players for the bench (which were needed but not indicational of a strategy),  Baka has been a big failure, Rudiger a big success, but I am not sure what was intended fof either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

1. He becomes a member of the first team squad that contributes. What else would happen? Again, all I did was remove the players who had not played any part in the first team the season before and players that had not played a minute in years. Hardly controversial when you are looking to see the impact from ins and outs on the first team (I'd have thought, but I seem to have been mistaken).

2. None of the players in the list had clocked minutes the season before. Hence, they did not have a negative impact on Conte's squad - I.e. the club had clearly already discounted them for the future. Also, I'm not counting the successes - I'm counting the players that had any sort of impact on the first team. Many of them have not been successes but have played first team football for us nonetheless. Those players are counted. And in any case, since you seem to take offence on how I have excluded some players and why I did it, the lower net spend figure is still MILES ahead of anything Arsenal, Liverpool or Spurs have spent. So the main point is still valid - Conte has been massively backed in the market. There is no argument to be had that he hasn't. Do you disagree with that? If so, would be interesting to hear why.

It depends on the definition of 'being backed'  You think millions being spent on players, no matter who they may be, is the criteria. Others think players he actually wants as opposed to those foisted on him is the criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

1. He becomes a member of the first team squad that contributes. What else would happen?

I wouldn't worry - if anyone sets out a basis for discussion, there are always some who will say it doesn't work, and we should go back to doing things based on their opinions.  It is not the details of what you have to say that are being challenged, just your right to make logical arguments that might differ to others' pre-judgements.   Even if you agree, your right to logical argument will get challenged by a few.  
Pretty much everyone agrees that there has been positive financial support for Conte (except 1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

It depends on the definition of 'being backed'  You think millions being spent on players, no matter who they may be, is the criteria. Others think players he actually wants as opposed to those foisted on him is the criteria.

But that then depends on who Conte actually wanted. Forget the £250m+ he wanted to spend on Van Dijk, Naingollan and Sandro, they may have been his first choice targets, they probably were but just because he didn't get them why do so many assume he didn't get his second, third or fourth choice? Because they haven't been good enough? 

Why are some so quick to assume that he didn't agree to the players we signed just because they were not his first choice targets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.