The study revealed that the Red Devils have spent 1.545bn euros on transfers, making 470m euros back in player sales.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60290406
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60290406
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Man Utd: negative spend of 1bn euros in last 10 years
- Thread starter Stat Brother
- Start date
They of course mean Man U spent over a billion POUNDS !
nicko31
Well-known member
Think you mean positive spent don't you?
And the Albion have 248m Euro net transfer spend in the same time.
Wow
if only we had a dullard with all these facts and figures at their fingertips... we might then know how this relates to other clubs in the EPL and Euroland.
or you can find it for yourself here:
https://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2021/wp367/en/
https://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2021/wp367/en/
Attachments
Washie
Well-known member
Half of that time was spent in the championship, so would be nearly half a billion in 10 years.
ConfusedGloryHunter
He/him/his/that muppet
- Jul 6, 2011
- 2,051
I don't think it works like that.
- Thread starter
- #10
Everton really is a basket case.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,672
Yes, I don't really understand the terminology.
It probably makes sense in accounting but confuses the issue in this instance
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
And what have they won in that time
Premier League 2013
FA Community Shield 2013
FA Cup 2016
FA Community Shield 2016
League Cup 2017
Europa League 2017
Its not what you spend it who spends it
Premier League 2013
FA Community Shield 2013
FA Cup 2016
FA Community Shield 2016
League Cup 2017
Europa League 2017
Its not what you spend it who spends it
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
Yes negative spend is incorrect as to me that says Profit when clearly is a massive loss, I would say excess spend
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
In 2002 who would have ever believed that we could be 19th in a table like that just 20 years later, I had to go to 2003/04 to find the first player after 2002 who we paid for and that was £180,000 for Leon Knight
- Thread starter
- #17
In 2002 who would have ever believed that we could be 19th in a table like that just 20 years later, I had to go to 2003/04 to find the first player after 2002 who we paid for and that was £180,000 for Leon Knight
Certainly beats the hell out of having to drink a tonne of fizzy pop.
Everton, Newcastle, Spuds and Villa spent similar net cash outflow on players as Liverpool, yet won Jack sh@t.
Manure spent 3x as much.
Shows the importance of genuinely cerebral owners with a long term strategy, and getting a world class manager.
Last edited:
In 2002 who would have ever believed that we could be 19th in a table like that just 20 years later, I had to go to 2003/04 to find the first player after 2002 who we paid for and that was £180,000 for Leon Knight
Interesting how similar our data are to Palace's. I seem to recall a Dullard graphic from a couple of years ago suggesting they pay much higher wages, though.
It's interesting (well, to me anyway) to see that it's Italian and French clubs making the most profit on transfers by a distance.
15 of the top 20 clubs sorted by transfer profit are French or Italian, with Lille (€349m) and Lyon (€247m) leading the way.
15 of the top 20 clubs sorted by transfer profit are French or Italian, with Lille (€349m) and Lyon (€247m) leading the way.