I mean Abramovich is exactly 17 times richer than Malcolm Glazer which is not fair so i think Sir Alex Ferguson does not have to over depend on Glazer for money to buy players, instead since we are still the highest earning club and Old Trafford too has expanded and is used for many of England's international matches the ticket sales and the revenue is still more than that of Chelsea and we can still compete with them in the transfer market.I mean Manchester United has the highest sponsorship deal in Britain and have business in Asia and the Middle East we have to be able to compete with Chelsea in the transfer market to get as many trophies as possible.
2006-11-29 04:46:04 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football ➔ English Football
It's not that simple unfortunately. You seen how much we're in debt?
2006-11-29 04:49:55 · answer #1 · answered by fubar18ad 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You ask a good question.
The only way we can outdo Chelsea in the amrket is clearly not by outbuying them, as they have too much money to ever be exhausted.
Value is what I say! They signed Andrei Shevchencko for around 30 million Pounds and he has only scored 3 league goals and seemed out of place in England. Ballack has not done much better, and he is another high paid player.
If United want to get the Title back we have to get the most out of any transfer. So far the Jury is out on Carrick, but the signings of Vidic and Evra have been good. Rooney and Ronaldo are another 2 good buys. It is clear after United's last two games to Everton and Chelsea that they need more depth, a striker and Midfielder are top on the agenda, and they should be able to address this in January. Sir Alex Ferguson does have some money to work with, and should be able to make some significant deals.
2006-11-29 11:19:07 · answer #2 · answered by Robert B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hi Mr thanks for your e-mail, I tried to reply but you have your e-mail barred on here. Are you related to Mystic Meg or something?. How do you know?. As a Football Fan you know as well as I do, that the season is still too young to foresee the outcome, once the Xmas and New Year's games are out of the way we should see just who's in with a chance of winning. I think Man U had their chance last Saturday and Blew it, that draw was as a good as a win for Chelsea, and you still have to face us at the Bridge yet, that could well be the Title decider Match. A good result for you tonight, they played well, but with the Chelsea win, things stay as they are. Now to your question you moan about how Chelsea has all this money to spend, that's rich coming from a supporter who's team spent £82 Million on just 3 players a couple of seasons ago. do you agree that Man U should play their Home Matches in London to give their real Fans a chance to see them play?. I would also say cast your mind back, Man U were home and dry to win the Championship, Bookies had even paid out those who backed Man U to win the Title, and what happened you lost your last four games and Arsenal won it!. Hence the joke " Whats the Difference Between Alex Ferguson and an Arsonist?" answer " An Arsonist wouldn't throw away his last four Matches!". I look forward to your reply and may the best side win!.
2006-11-29 11:33:51 · answer #3 · answered by Gazpode55 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
At one time MUFC were richer than any club in the world so what went wrong. The only way to combat rich Chairmen is to produce home grown tallent as United did when they had Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, the Neville Brothers and probably others in their youth squad but till that happens you can forget about competing with clubs that have money and get used to being runners up at best. Not a slight on MUFC, just the way it is i'm afraid.
2006-11-29 05:30:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
City's far superior squad? No no no... They have a good first team (not sure about it being better than United's mind), but their squad (and especially squad mentality) cannot compare to United's. United have the better "squad", fact! And for those that say we'll find out in the community shield? No... We'll find out after both teams have played their 38 league games :)
2016-05-23 02:11:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont think man utd can compete with chelsea's money..
But, man utd has Sir Alex Ferguson.... he could make a normal player to be a good player..
Michael Carric and Nemanja Vidic for example..
people had no idea why sir alex would buy them..but hey, they became really good players in Manchester United!!
We just need to buy striker to back up Saha and Rooney in case they get injured..
2006-12-04 14:43:32 · answer #6 · answered by n.s.d 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Chelsea can buy all the players they want. But Manchester doesn't really need to go out and spend money with the talent they currently have. I say the team needs another Striker and Midfielder.
2006-11-29 04:54:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
But if you think about chelsea have taken the transfer market by strom. everybody now thinks chelsea are the best team in the world after winning just 2 EPL titles so they all want to go there.
2006-11-29 04:49:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
he does compete alex doesn't buy 2 squads to stop the opposition buying them and then leave them to fester on the bench. players suffer under this russian regime and internationals get over looked because lack of match fitness. name one position that sir alex needs a player, NEEDS ?
2006-11-29 09:08:54 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
why would man u need to compete in the transfer market? they've already got the players that it takes to win. might as well save up the money for when they really need it...
2006-11-29 07:37:06 · answer #10 · answered by sweetpanther08 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋