A decade for sale 989

And clearly you have not understood how the transfers are listed.

Where did you get those stats Dave? And did you even read my OP?

1993:

players in 07-06-1993 Nigel Clough £2275000 22-07-1993 Neil Ruddock £2500000 17-09-1993 Julian Dicks £1500000 players out 23-09-1993 Mike Hooper -£550000

Liverpool balance for 1993 = £5,72,5000

players in 22-07-1993 Roy Keane £3750000 players out 16-07-1993 Brian Carey £250000 15-10-1993 Danny Wallace £250000

Manutd balance for 1993 = £3,250,000

Look in the 92-93 and 93-94 seasons, and look at the actual dates of each transfer. If i have to explain this to you again, well, actually i wont explain it again. You're an intelligent bloke right? You can work it out?

Not true, Newcastle spent more than us. Stats bellow.

Reason what away Dave? My stats are good and my argument is far sounder than any you have put forward with your haphazardly pasted web pages and statistical guesswork. (not to mention numerous errors)

And yet we still spent less that Liverpool & Newcastle over that decade.

Not the argument you started this post with? The one where you rather oddly have Manutd spending 6mil in 1993 and somehow have Liverpool spending nothing? When in actual fact Liverpool spent over 6 mil in the year of 1993 and Manutd only spent 3.5 mil.

Not a very good foundation for any argument is it Dave. I mean you were only 8.5 mil askew in the relative spending of the two clubs that season FFS.

stats for each calendar year.

Manutd spending 96: £8,000,000 - £5,100,000 = £2,900,000 97: £8,500,000 - £3,050,000 = £5,450,000 98: £27,750,000 - £3,675,000 = £24,075,000 99: £10,000,000 - £1,750,000 = £8,250,000 total: £32,507,500

Liverpool spending 96: £3,250,000 - £4,100,000 = -£850,000 97: £13,650,000 - £7,100,000 = £6,550,000 98: £5,500,000 - £1,850,000 = £3,650,000 99: £30,850,000 - £14,150,000 = £16,700,000 total: £26,050,000

Newcastle spending 96: £21,700,000 - £1,000,000 = £20,700,000 97: £10,000,000 - £15,750,000 = -£5,750,000 98: £36,820,000 - £24,400,000 = £12,420,000 99: £22,100,000 - £11,400,000 = £10,700,000 = £38,070,000

And if you include 1995 you have very different picture.

Manutd spending 95: £6,250,000 - £14,865,000 = -£8615000 96: £8,000,000 - £5,100,000 = £2,900,000 97: £8,500,000 - £3,050,000 = £5,450,000 98: £27,750,000 - £3,675,000 = £24,075,000 99: £10,000,000 - £1,750,000 = £8,250,000 total: £23,892,500

Liverpool spending 95: £10,000,000 - £0 = £10,000,000 96: £3,250,000 - £4,100,000 = -£850,000 97: £13,650,000 - £7,100,000 = £6,550,000 98: £5,500,000 - £1,850,000 = £3,650,000 99: £30,850,000 - £14,150,000 = £16,700,000 total: £36,050,000

See its not so cut and dry is it Dave, not only did Newcastle spend more than us, but over the 5 years so did Liverpool, and by 12 million. Not a small amount is it Dave? Especialy when you accuse us of dominating 2 years (96 & 97) of transfer spending with 8 million.

I know you find that very difficult to swallow, but it is the truth.

That is utter nonsense Dave, Liverpool spent more than us in 1997, and Newcastle broke the world record transfer fee in signing Alan Shearer in 1996. They spent 20mil that year, we spent 3 million FFS. Manutd only spent 8 mil over the two seasons, 96 & 97, less than Liverpool spent in the single year of 1995.

And as i have offered elsewhere I will send you the spreadsheet and you can check the figures for yourself if you find them so hard to believe. Its free as well ;-)

I never acknowledged anything of the sort.

Not true.

That is the season when we first spent big.

We dominated the transfer Market after we became successful. That stats bear this out.

If by late 90s, you mean 98 and 99, then you have a case. But as you yourself stated we had risen to the top before that, as you cite the back to back EPLs and double winning seasons, all being before the 98 spending spree.

How come that didnt work for Liverpool?

Fair enough.

It certainly doesn't mean we should only consider money spent and not money recouped.

Last 2 seasons Dave, we spent relatively modestly in 96 and 97.

I have "racked it up", thats why i did the stats, that was the point of this post. I did methodically tally up all the figures rather than just randomly picking the main ones i can remember. Thats why i did 4 clubs, so there was common grounds for comparison.

Just blurting out vaguely remembered figures for Manutd doesn't prove anything Dave. As i have shown Liverpool spent far more than Manutd the season they bought Keane, that in itself show how common ill formulated ramblings can lead to flawed understandings of the truth about something.

Everyone blurts out than Keane transfer record as if it proves we spent more than anyone, as if that proves we had a huge advantage over *everyone*, but the truth is we didn't.

FFS, do you even know how to use a web browser?

01-09-1996 Patrik Berger £3,250,000

And yes soccerbase is a revealing source, but you actually need to open your f***ing eyes and read the information properly.

To remind you of the opening sentence.

"Manutd are often accused of buying success, of *only* being where they are or achieving what they have because of the extra money generated by becoming a PLC."

It never just comes down to one thing, but Manutd's rise the top was a damn sight less to do with PLC money than many seem to believe. The point was never to say money has nothing to do with it, cause money always has something to do with it whether you're Manutd, Liverpool or Tranmere.

I have never said money had nothing to with it.

Highest spending team of 2000s. Not of the 90s.

Only if you keep working on the browsing skills ;-)