And your constant repetition of that one fact doesn't?
Well you are not doing very well are you Dave. You cant even look up info on soccerbase without f***ing it up big time.
Actually my stats do agree with that, and i have never disputed it. .
A decade for sale 993They will go to wherever is seen as best for them. The reasons are not always financial, although probably most often are. The fact that SWP has suffered a loss of form is...
But they also show,
1995-1999 that Liverpool spent more than us, over 50% more than we did.
A decade for sale 992A reasonable post ruined with that last comment. What utter bollocks! How many of those now at Pool, Newcastle, or any...
and if you include year 2000 to make it 6 years it looks like this...
Liverpool 1995 - 2000 : £95,750,000 - £39,950,000 = £55,800,000 Manutd 1995 - 2000: £68,300,000 - £36,440,000 = £31,860,000
Almost double what we spent in those 6 years.
Of course if you move forward 2 seasons, it will look different. But it proves my case that we didnt spend "BIG" until after we got to the top.
If you had any kind of dignity you would at least admit that much.
I have never disputed that Dave. And it doesn't walk all over the OP because if you check soccerbase you will find the same thing. All I have pointed out is that during our rise to the top in the 90s we were not outspent, and in actual fact if you include the year 2000 we were still (rather well) outspent by both Liverpool and Newcastle.
When that changes is in 2001 & 2002, obviously the purchase of Veron & Van Nistelroy. 50 mil over 2 seasons turns it all on its head, and i did say that post 2000 would look different in the OP. But that was never the point.
The stats you have quoted (for the 5th time) agree with mine. And rather than undermining my argument they actual help it because they confirm the stats i worked out for that same period. At least my tally of Uniteds spending for the 6 years you seem so focused on came out the same.
