Dave

I made the below claim -- that it is a disgrace if MUFC don't spend 400m this summer -- and promise to expand on it in the coming days. This is the first attempt. True or false? "Manchester United has not made a 'big important signing' since 2018." From my point of view, at least if we admit that we overpaid by say at least 20m for Antony due to the Glazers panicking last second (£76m makes him the 11th biggest PL transfer ever after all, so he was a big signing) -- I don't think we have. In any event, Antony is a lot cheaper than a Harry Kane including wages. Casmiro was a left-over from Real Madrid. High cost per year, but shorter term commitment. Varane was the same, just a 3 year deal. Mount is a depth player, went for half of Rice/Caicedo and co for a reason. Sancho for £68m in 21? Maybe. Jadon is on a high wage. At the same time, mid-tier signing for most of the top teams. Rasmus is on a really low wage, his yearly cost is definitely not even remotely "major". Not top 15-20 for a PSG. The total cost for one Haaland is about 350m for City, the total cost for Casemiro, Varane, Mount and Sancho -- combined -- won't be much higher than that. Maguire is the last big important signing we made, before that it was Pogba and Lukaku. Pogba is only the really big signing we have made since Di Maria. I am absolutely convinced that the expectations on Ineos/the Glazers and what the club needs going forward must be "re-calibrated". A side-effect of the constant protests and negative angle on everything, is that it has created a reality that in all aspects just isn't in touch with reality. This hurt us in January, it hurts us with the pressure it puts on the club. But first of all, how about "FFP"? It is complete nonsense that our spending after 30 June will be restricted by FFP. Chelsea has worse finances than we have and just spent -- 1 billion -- on transfer fees during one season. We can't spend 400m? We could have spent more in January and last summer, especially with just a few more sales, but that season was admittedly tight with the record losses from 21/22 still on the books. Since we will miss out on European football all together, we won't even be limited by UEFA's FFP rules next season. Why does reality have to be re-calibrated? The above is one reason. I am not saying that we -- should -- make a certain type of signings. But you constantly hear that MUFC has just paid a ton for big names and it doesn't work. That is just not in touch with reality. Imagine if you are a PSG or Real fan and are told that United have changed course from trying to sign the best players to trying to rebuild responsible with smart signings -- because the former alternative didn't work. So which where the big most expensive players we sign? Two bench players from Real and a young player from Dortmund with an English tax. Right? Reality is that we aren't even remotely close to spending a lot on our squad. For example: Rashford makes 15m per year in wages. 15m is the cost for a really good player. ⚽️City's player wage bill is by the latest available numbers 140m higher than ours. 140m higher. ⚽️Chelsea's is app. 120m higher than ours. ⚽️Liverpool's 56m higher than ours. Straight from UEFA's landscape report (Arsenal will have made a mega jump after new contracts to all Saka, Odegard, Rice's deal and CL bonuses): People can't think that the only reason we don't have a good XI is due to injuries. Even if everyone are healthy, and we you just remove Sancho and Varane, the cost for our squad won't be close to be top 5 in the PL next season. Why? Lol, just take a look at our squad. Some bench players from teams around us, some academy players and Bruno (who is underpaid). People also need to remember that under the Glazers we liked to oversell what we paid in wages, while everyone else does the opposite. Is Sancho on 350k a week -- bonuses included -- contract which is more like 190k in the way everyone else reports wages? I would bet so. I bet most others would have reported that Antony makes 125-150k instead of 200k like the Glazers sold it to the fans. It is also clear that we have paid more to our directors/brass than anyone else. Our wage bill will look higher next season, but how much of that will go to Murtough, Arnold and co's bonuses for the strategic investment? So how can we compete with these teams if we only sign the odd left over player from them? Just like it was impossible for West Ham, Everton, Blackburn and Newcastle to compete with Ferguson's United in its prime -- it would be impossible for us. A few things: 🔺These type of things can always be misunderstood. Am I saying that we should sign Neymar for 300m? Is that what we need? Of course not, we need management personnel that makes excellent signings, to have a chance to make up ground on our rivals. 🔺And you don't have to make big signings. City, Real and PSG all built their squads on record signings/spendings, that worked out, while ours in Pogba, Lukaku and co didn't. But a team like Arsenal and Liverpool have more methodically built their team up, first for Klopp's prime a few years ago and now for Arsenal. But we take this route, it could definitely take 5-10 years to get there, if you 'ever' do. Liverpool's success is contingent on a few homerun signings/transfers. Without them, there is no Klopp era with a PL title. Arsenal have no title to show for it, but have made excellent business. After being in the gutters for 10 years. Going by history, it's often a lot more economical (i.e. a heck of a lot cheaper), faster and better -- to invest a ton early rather than trying to think you can be 10x smarter than everyone else in football. 🔺Regardless, nothing is more dangerous than to take on a project like "Manchester United", and forming a policy based on a completely distorted picture of reality. Facts are that City pays their players 56% more than United pays it's players. The conclusion of this should not be that United should lower it's wage bill because paying high wages doesn't work. Right? Not saying that we shouldn't cut any of the deadwood, not get rid of overpaid players, and stop overpaying players -- 100% different issues. But far from sold on that we should spend less net. Sounds a bit absurd to be honest. 🔺We need world class players to compete. It is as simple as that. We won't compete just because we sign a bunch of big names -- but it doesn't change the fact that we need -- the right -- world class players to compete. We can get those players by developing academy players, signing up and coming players from other teams or signing established players. 👉Ultimately, Ratcliffe has taken a pragmatic approach to rebuilding Manchester United, with the aim to get it back on top again within 3 years. In this context, he has given his preliminary views on things, like that our spending probably have to be fairly limited going forward due to past years mistakes. This was just when he came in, and he made sure to add that 'it was one of the things they needed to look at'. That you have the views Ratcliffe have -- is not surprising. Right? It is the established notion, but it is a distorted one. Facts are: (1) We are not limited by FFP. Just look at how much everyone else is spending. Chelsea spent 1 billion, missed out on European football, and have much smaller revenues than us from match days and sponsorships etc. (2) If we just spend as much as our rivals (say 200m this summer), the cost for our squad won't be close to being top 4 next season. (3) Historically, a vast majority of the the top teams in football are build by very high initial spend. Chelsea is back in Europe due to their spending. PSG remains at a high level in Europe, earning a lot of money, due to their spending. Same with Real Madrid. City built up a world class squad with unprecedented spending, and remains there. Again, spending 40% on our squad this summer of what Chelsea have spent on their squad last year should be a minimum, i.e. £400m.