| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! 21:09 - Oct 20 with 912 views | Woolfenthen |
Looks money well spent |  | | |  |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 21:12 - Oct 20 with 898 views | Keno |
sounds like my ex!! |  |
| |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 21:14 - Oct 20 with 872 views | Chrisd |
Another example where you can spend the most, but it doesn’t guarantee success. |  |
| |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:36 - Oct 21 with 641 views | PrideOfTheEast |
Think he's bought better than many of their recent managers? | | | |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:41 - Oct 21 with 628 views | chicoazul |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:36 - Oct 21 by PrideOfTheEast |
Think he's bought better than many of their recent managers? |
Signing Ronaldo has been a disaster and made them worse. |  |
| |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:47 - Oct 21 with 617 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:41 - Oct 21 by chicoazul |
Signing Ronaldo has been a disaster and made them worse. |
He probably didn't have much choice in that one though, to be fair to him. |  |
| |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:52 - Oct 21 with 607 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 21:14 - Oct 20 by Chrisd |
Another example where you can spend the most, but it doesn’t guarantee success. |
That's tragically just pretty standard fare at the top end of the Prem these days. I'd imagine Man City and Chelsea's outlay is pretty similar. Arsenal spent £150m in the summer and will be miles off the top 6. | | | |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:57 - Oct 21 with 593 views | rickw |
They've spent a lot, but they can afford it and I'd suggest most have been decent signings after years of bad signings...
Success:
Maguire
Fernandes
James
Ronaldo
Mixed:
Wan-Bissaka
Telles
Failure:
Van de Beek
Too Soon:
Varane
Sancho
Amad
I've put Dan James as a success as he was sold for a £10m profit, Ronaldo too as they've already made far more than he cost in commercial revenue. |  |
| |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 10:02 - Oct 21 with 576 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:57 - Oct 21 by rickw |
They've spent a lot, but they can afford it and I'd suggest most have been decent signings after years of bad signings...
Success:
Maguire
Fernandes
James
Ronaldo
Mixed:
Wan-Bissaka
Telles
Failure:
Van de Beek
Too Soon:
Varane
Sancho
Amad
I've put Dan James as a success as he was sold for a £10m profit, Ronaldo too as they've already made far more than he cost in commercial revenue. |
Don't know how you can put AWB in mixed. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 10:03 - Oct 21 with 571 views | rickw |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 10:02 - Oct 21 by JammyDodgerrr |
Don't know how you can put AWB in mixed. |
Why's that?
Do you think he's a success or failure then for a £50m player?
I'd say he's been excellent defensively but hasn't given them enough going forward [Post edited 21 Oct 2021 10:03]
| |
| |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 10:04 - Oct 21 with 565 views | WeWereZombies |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 09:52 - Oct 21 by tractorboy1978 |
That's tragically just pretty standard fare at the top end of the Prem these days. I'd imagine Man City and Chelsea's outlay is pretty similar. Arsenal spent £150m in the summer and will be miles off the top 6. |
Manchester City transfer spend 21/22 so far is £114,750,000; and for 20/21 was £145,620,000 and for 19/20 was £143,570,000.
So only £47 million less than United.
Chelsea spent £108,000,000 for 21/22 so far; £222,480,000 for last season and a modest £40,500,000 for 2019/20. So a surprising £70 million less
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631 |  |
| |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 12:56 - Oct 21 with 504 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Solskjaer spent 441m in 3 years, wow! on 10:03 - Oct 21 by rickw |
Why's that?
Do you think he's a success or failure then for a £50m player?
I'd say he's been excellent defensively but hasn't given them enough going forward [Post edited 21 Oct 2021 10:03]
|
He's clearly been a success. Played nearly every game, barely ever puts a foot wrong. Yes he is not the best going forward but still contributed and been a mainstay since he signed.
You're putting Dan James as a success purely because they sold him on for a good amount but his time on the pitch was clearly a failure; he was not good enough. [Post edited 21 Oct 2021 12:57]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
