So over the last 5 years or so they’ve spent that. That’s still nothing compared to the others. In fact having a cursory look, I can’t see how that team was £350m?
Edit: Using Wikipedia for fees and even including subs I get £270m
I used transfermarkt & the cost of tonight’s squad is £345m & that is with Oxlade-Chamberlain.
How relevant is it though? They’re all big clubs with big revenues and most clubs make loses, some huge. Christ Man U carry fuck loads of debt don’t they?
Or maybe they’re astute enough to get fair money for them? I’m not sure why that’d annoy you, seems like good business practice to me.
Also, having just googled more info about your points, in the last 5 years Man C have spent £563m nett, Man U £437m, Chelsea £222m, Liverpool, £52m.
Did you also check the income for those teams over the last 5 years. (tbf I only looked for 2017).
For 2017 Man Utd £581m, Man City £473m, Chelsea £361 & Liverpool £301m.
So based on that Man Utd would have an extra £1400m over 5 years, so the fact that they have spent more shouldn’t be a surprise.
If they are going to measure their success on financial grounds (ie nett spend) then surely they should look at profits as well. Utd (£80m), City (£1.1m), Chelsea (£15.3m) & Liverpool (-£19.8m)
It’s as if they can’t claim their superiority on the pitch any more so use nett spend instead.
PS not expecting you to reply, you’re probably too busy watching your other team