Err, I don't think you fully understood how the figures were reached do you. I suggest you do some research and get back to me on that one.

I know. Doesn't mean it shouldn't change or be ignored. Football as a whole - owners, sponsors, governing bodies, players, managers, supporters etc. - all sit back and let it happen, it just goes from one extreme to another. We never look to progress, to change, to make the right thing happen, we just sit back and watch as the sport continues to lose all morals.

Spot on post. I knew what Fergie would go with, posted the exact team(Vidic the exception) a couple of pages back. I'd have gone for Rooney up on his own and put Jones in the midfield to try and shackle Silva. I also think playing two flair players in Young and Nani wasn't ideal. Valencia provides a higher workrate and a bit more grit than the other two. A Park, Fletcher, Jones, Anderson, Valencia midfield would have been more suited to to containing City.

I would say that if there's going to be a salary cap it will only come via a European Super League. I can't see where else you could introduce one. If you introduce one in England it will be turnover based (i.e. cap limited to 50% of turnover) because the big clubs have a strong case to argue that it would hinder their ability to compete in the CL. A turnover based cap is hardly a salary cap though, more a concession to competitiveness. Realistically for true competitiveness you need a flat cap.

If a ESL for football isn't going to happen then perhaps leagues should look at the distribution of revenue within their competitions in the same way that some American sports do. To me though a ESL seems a logical end result for European football. The CL is now the pinnacle of world football and UEFA would be silly to not even be considering it because their competition are sports like the NFL, NBA, MLB and probably Brazilian football in the future. The EPL currently is the main rival to sports like that and either you allow the EPL to grow as it has done or you risk undermining its ability to compete with those other sports for global revenue (essential for a continued improvement of revenue streams). Therefore, a ESL becomes an increasingly likely point of discussion over the next twenty years.



It's also worth mentioning that you can take a team from no budget in the non-league to Premiership Champions as I have done myself with Gloucester City

Show-off!

City have spent in excess of £220 million since summer 2010. The examples you collate are over a period of time. As I said; unprecedented. It isn't a question of boo-hoo, it is a case of City raising the bar, that it requires clubs to have a similiar financial structure to compete. Barcelona are the obvious exception, but how often will you see a team that comprises of the talents of Villa, Messi, Xavi and Iniesta all at the same time.

Maybe we should do what the Liverpool fans do in times of strife and roll out 'net spend' statistics?

From a quick calculation City's net spend in the last four years is £315m.

Man United's is £224m over the last 25 years.

From this I conclude Manchester United fans are being short changed. Demand some signings and force the Glazier's to spend £91m on a new midfield in January to catch up.

An entire team worth of players in a little over two years including twice breaking the UK transfer record - a lot of money, in a short space of time is hardly a new way to success is my point.

I'm just reacting to people who think that its 'new' for a title contender to have 'bought' their way to being competitive. United spent big to earn their success - arguably, their spending in the early 2000s was unprecedented given they broke the transfer record in back to back years alongside other expenditure well beyond the means of the vast majority of Premier League clubs. being the 'richest' means you can compete - it's hardly new. spending well is what makes the difference.

ignoring the first bit.

I think it was obvious yesterday that United need someone in midfield. In this market a 'good' midfielder is going to set them back £25m. they arguably need someone better than just 'good' and might need another midfielder too...so £65/70m required? what were Chelsea reportedly offering for Modric? How much were United looking at for Sneijder?

They are scary numbers but that's what the market is - it's just more interesting in my view as there seem to be a few more clubs playing in the market - and that again inflates the price some more.

Chris Foy is a disgrace.