[dckyfoxes]

I was being challenge on this question on the debate the other day. We spent about the same amount of money like what Chelsea did in 2005/2006 just to retain the title this season (Not yet so far).

Is it true that with that amount spent every season will win you the EPL?
Although I know this questions to me is a NO as we win it this year due to a incredible performance from Ronaldo and our defence were solid enough to only concede 18 goals so far.

I'm sure many of you would agree with me that SAF spent on players for future endeavous for the club as none of this new players get to play on a regular basis.
Their contributation still can't be deny of our chances of retaining the title though.

So it keeps bothering me on the inside that we did spent huge amount this season for the likes of Anderson, Carrick, Hargreaves and Nani. We sure look pretty confident on retaining the title after yesterday night win.

It's really difficult to judge on this, maybe some views will result in a clearer picture of this issue on Money???

 

[fazman]

It has nothing to do with the amount spent purely the class of players brought in they have been first class

 

[yangch0000]

chelsea grabs the best players out there and pay them hell lot of money to play for them. the transfer fees they paid for the players are more than what was required, examples like shevchenko, robben, essien, drogba, they just outbid other clubs. they are able to take the chance as they are not afraid that the transfers would not be successful. scott parker, geremi, maniche, kezman, mutu, etc and etc came and went away, without making any significant contribution.
we buy the highly rated prospect out there, prospect with great amount of talent but yet to prove themselves in the bigger stage. the only big money transfer flops is veron, kleberson, djemba-djemba, forlan didnt cost us a lot of money

 

[sparkic]

I think fazman is right..its the quality that matters. Pool spent nearly as much as United since the EPL has been created in 1992 BUT have not won a single EPL title...they buy jokes and flops like sissoko, morientes, cisse, diouf, diao, and the list goes on and onnnnn whereas we may splash out cash all at once on the likes of Rooney or Rio - but thing is they are quality! Our buys are better and that is why we are winning the EPL imo

 

[akash_reds]

exactly yang.....
they use their money to buy the player how is playing well then and they spend a lot on him...they dont even care if he is old(eg. Sheva)....they just want any player who will get them through the season and then buy someone else who had a good season...they spent 20 mill pounds on SWP and then put him on the bench in the first 2 seasons.....now that is just..bad.....
they buy for the future but with then they also buy players for that position who are superstars........chelsea always has a new player added to their squad every year.........and that leads to instability...
while we buy players for the future and we buy first team players to fill in a weak position or a injury hit position....we bought in nani when we sold richardson and also as a replacement for giggs.....we bought in anderson as a long term replacement for scholes...hargo was brought in as a defensive mid for the first team......we used money now so we dont have to spend later...chelsea buy so that they can win and then put him in the bench and buy a new one in that position

 

[sweet fa]

in todays game money has to be spent to retain the title,at least 2 class players should be purchased every summer to keep the pot bubbling over.
buying new players does not guarentee the title for any team,but the team that does'nt invest will surely not win it {out of the big 4}.so with that in mind i must say a team needs to spend in order to have a chance of retaining their title which is no easy feat.

 

[Red Devil]

There is one glaring difference between United & Chelski.

Chelski bought a whole team, threw them on the pitch and appointed a "manager". Until then they were middle of the table no hopers. They did not WIN anything - they bought it.

United bought, slowly and carefully, filtered players in, managed them properly, and dont forget, is still using some of the class of 92 - home grown players too.

Players came and went during Fergie's reign; he fitted them into an EXISTING setup, he did not buy whole teams.

Big difference.

 

[Harvo]

Well our best assets this season have been ronaldo and the defence (Brown, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra) and we had all them already. None of these signings are straight first team, alot of them start on the bench.

 

[Nemanjaaa]

Players that are passionate are the ones that win you the trophies.
Players that are passionate don't join for money, they join to win things for the team therefore proving the players we bought are just class and wanted to come to united to win things, WE ARE NOT CHELSEA!

 

[unitedred]

Thread closed, no title has been won/bought or whatever you wanna say it.

Theres another 4 games left, show some respect to the team challenging us.

If youre talking about last season then we actually made a profit in the transfer market, so no we didn't 'buy the title.

You also gotta remember that everything we spend is money we have made ourselves, we aren't funded by a Russian sugar daddy/billionaire.