I forgot to start threads entitled - 

Most expensive squad ever assembled in English Football history beaten by Swansea (and MK Dons)

Of course now its United spending hundreds of millions we're getting quotes from ex players such as "forget the pricetag completely, we have to overspend as we're not in the champions league"

When City did the exact same it was obscene 

 Too easy 

It was a reply to a post with valid points 

You're ridiculously obsessed with United's finances.

The difference between Man United and city is simple enough, United have earned a lot of money through the likes of merchandise sales and success whereas city have earned nothing, a billionaire has bought the club and injected hundreds of millions into the club, it's not too long ago that city were in the Championship!

No matter what United spend on players I'll always think they earned the right to

Of course i can see the difference, but it doesn't bother me how clubs get their money. Chelsea's big spending never bothered me when Abramovich came in. If anything i welcomed it as it challenged the status quo of the top clubs at the time. Who wants to see a league were only the team with the most fans around the world and who buy most shirts can spend big money? 

The way some Utd fans have talked over the years about City's spending you would think that its only them that is allowed to spend big. Their double standards with what they are saying about how they are spending now and what they have said in the last 6 years and especially when City bought big to break into the top 4, is very amusing. 

Their ex players and fans have swapped phrases such as 'obscene spending', 'overpaid mercenarys' and 'ruining football' with 'forget pricetags' 'overspending is to be expected to get us back into europe' and 'i dont care how much he cost' 

Fergie 

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/11358493.FOOTBALL__Ex_Manchester_United_star_Mikael_Silvestre_launches_attack_on_Manchester_City_big_spending/?ref=rss" rel="nofollow - http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/11358493.FOOTBALL__Ex_Manchester_United_star_Mikael_Silvestre_launches_attack_on_Manchester_City_big_spending/?ref=rss

That's me on the right 

And one of ur POF dates on the left 

And you don't think you're being obsessed with United with the amount you posted in the last 2 weeks?! 

Have to admit I've never seen United spend anything as close to this so I can understand how a Chelsea and City fan felt when they practically won the lottery overnight. The fact that it sickens abus makes it even sweeter.

Seriously speaking whether it's United or anyone else doing it, It's not good for football in a sporting sense and there has to be spending and salary caps brought in to stop this type of crazy spending. 

Clubs can work around the FFP rules too easy. You can spend crazy amounts of money as long as your merchandising/sponsorship income balances off against it which means all the biggest clubs in the world can still practically buy 6 or whatever big names in the one window. 

If  she was my date she would be buying the chips at half time too, state of her

It was a joke thread started in retaliation to the similarly titled thread for the Burnley vs Man U game, and to laugh at the fact that Stoke won, nothing at all to do with the financial side of things!

It just seems like you're always trying to justify the changes at Man City since they were pumped with free money by constantly comparing to other clubs (and in particular Man United) by posting pics and articles that are years old!

Not trying to justify anything

I am 100% trying to point out hypocrisy among football fans, commentators and ex-players who are paid to give their views on the game

Where is the hypocrisy though? Besides the Silvestre comment the rest of the articles you posted are years old.

Pointing out the hypocrisy is you trying to justify Man City's spending imo.

United have only started spending massively in the last year (though I'm aware they've always spent big!)

Did you never hear football fans in the last 6 years say City were buying their success? Buying trophies, spending obscenely and buying players who were only there for a bigger pay packet?

Now Im not denying or "justifying" any of that, but have you heard that said to the same level about Manchester United recently? 

If Van Gaal succeeds and wins something, do you think the media will give him the credit he deserves, or react like they did when Mancini won trophies and suggest that he bought them and his achievement was minimal?

I see your point but again I think it's more to do with the way Man City have received a massive financial injection and not earned the money the same way other clubs have.

The whole philosophy instilled into Man United by Fergie of giving youth a chance does seem to be forgotten, they are now throwing money at their problems but that is necessary, as the saying goes you need to spend money to make money!

U dont understand the difference. Even though you say you do. The money Man U spend is there money so it is not kamikazee like ferguson is saying in that interview. There is no danger at Man U spending this money and putting these players on these big wages but at City there is a huge gamble if the owner pulls out. The club would just lose control of itself and go under bcos they wouldnt be able to sustain. But United are pulling in hundreds of million a year to sustain being able to pay these transfers and wages all the time. City arent spending within their means as a club and Man U are. Uniteds spending isnt kamakazee but City and chelseas is. Theres a difference you dont get.

Have you seen the long term plans, the academy development which is underway or the redevelopment work of East Manchester? 

There is a minimal chance that the owner will pull out. 

 

Why would they do that? They seem to love it at city and it's not like they are going to run out of money any time soon.

 

Do united fans think they should be the only ones with money? United were fortunate that their dominance started when the tv money and global appeal skyrocketed. Teams like City and Chelsea were on catch up because of this. They could attract the local fans obviously but luring the global barstoolers and gloryhuntings "fans" and their cash away from United would never happen. Not without success on the field which obviously only happens when a team spends a lot of money. Footballing success usually correlates quite well with the wage bill of the teams.

 

I am not saying he will I dont know anything about there owners. He will die at some point of course and then what. But all I am saying is that there is a big difference between City and Man Us spending because City are dependent on one man whereas Man U are dependent on themselves. Man U spend there money City spend one mans money. Self sufficient versus One man's wealth. Its a big difference. I dont mind I prefer to see City and Chelsea winning titles as it is different. Different winners is good for me makes it less boring. 

Everyone knows where the two clubs generate their money from and therefore the difference in that respect. It was addressed on page 1 of this thread.