|
Post by venceremos on Nov 5, 2011 1:37:57 GMT 1
They're often ungracious in defeat and nauseatingly gloating in victory. That said any United fan who says of City 'yeah, they're good, but they should be the bloody money they've spent' is having their twenty-years-of-success cake and bloody well eating it. Disagree with just about all of your post but I'll just pick out the two bits that irk me the most. It's impossible to claim that an entire club is graceless in defeat and gloating in victory - especially over a 25 year period. That's a purely subjective judgment. It depends on your perspective. The winners will often appear gloating to the losers and losers often appear graceless. What was ungracious about United in their defeats to Barcelona in 2010 and 2011? Or gloating about their victory over them in 2008? To single out United, or any club, in this context is a nonsense. Of course United have spent a lot of money. But there have always been others matching, or exceeding, their spending and they've had a policy of not buying established players at top prices. Not exclusively of course, but most of the players you mention were either home grown or bought for relatively little. United have never put together a squad of players bought in for top dollar. City currently have Micah Richards and .... maybe Joe Hart and .... anyone else that wasn't an established top player at his previous club? There is a difference. United have never bought a title in the way City will if they win it. Read Brian Glanville, one of the most respected of football writers, referring to City as a "slur" on the modern game. I'm not aware that he's ever used that phrase in the context of United. Ferguson's personal generosity is known throughout the game, and beyond. Of course he's got plenty of things wrong in 25 years - who wouldn't? Of course some of his players have sometimes behaved less than perfectly - whose haven't? His achievement in building so many outstanding teams, developing so many great players (how many of the great United players of the past 25 years were bought at their peaks?) and playing such a vibrant style of football is unparalleled.
|
|
|
Post by Myddleshrew on Nov 5, 2011 1:46:07 GMT 1
Im not a United fan but you cant mock Fetgie for what he has done
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2011 2:27:28 GMT 1
year ends in a 1 look out spurs might win a minor cup ;D Well said pilch. Wahayee. Got the Double up. Mind you i only bet on certs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2011 2:39:06 GMT 1
Yeah, must admit they are a very principled club. Stood up to Rooney in August when he cited a lack of ambition by the club would force him to seek a transfer. Then decided to stay, with a new improved contract safely stashed away in his back pocket. Rooney is now the 3rd highest paid player worldwide. Ambition or cash, you be the judge.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Nov 5, 2011 2:45:49 GMT 1
Sir Alex has been the face of a very efficient machine for a rather long time. Well Done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2011 3:14:05 GMT 1
They're often ungracious in defeat and nauseatingly gloating in victory. That said any United fan who says of City 'yeah, they're good, but they should be the bloody money they've spent' is having their twenty-years-of-success cake and bloody well eating it. Disagree with just about all of your post but I'll just pick out the two bits that irk me the most. It's impossible to claim that an entire club is graceless in defeat and gloating in victory - especially over a 25 year period. That's a purely subjective judgment. It depends on your perspective. The winners will often appear gloating to the losers and losers often appear graceless. What was ungracious about United in their defeats to Barcelona in 2010 and 2011? Or gloating about their victory over them in 2008? To single out United, or any club, in this context is a nonsense. Of course United have spent a lot of money. But there have always been others matching, or exceeding, their spending and they've had a policy of not buying established players at top prices. Not exclusively of course, but most of the players you mention were either home grown or bought for relatively little. United have never put together a squad of players bought in for top dollar. City currently have Micah Richards and .... maybe Joe Hart and .... anyone else that wasn't an established top player at his previous club? There is a difference. United have never bought a title in the way City will if they win it. Read Brian Glanville, one of the most respected of football writers, referring to City as a "slur" on the modern game. I'm not aware that he's ever used that phrase in the context of United. Ferguson's personal generosity is known throughout the game, and beyond. Of course he's got plenty of things wrong in 25 years - who wouldn't? Of course some of his players have sometimes behaved less than perfectly - whose haven't? His achievement in building so many outstanding teams, developing so many great players (how many of the great United players of the past 25 years were bought at their peaks?) and playing such a vibrant style of football is unparalleled. To say that a club is graceful in defeat and gloating in victory is purely subjective. Of course it is, it's one man's opinion. Why quote the words of Brian Granville to re- inforce your argument. He may be respected as a football writer, but referring to City as a slur on the modern game... based on what, fact, or a subjective view? He may not have used that phrase in the context of United, but how does that bolster your argument. Do we have to believe in the great God Granville as "chapter and verse " on the subject. Don't think so. You may have your beliefs concerning United, others may have theirs, but neither are based solely on fact. Playing such a vibrant style of football is unparalled. Better run that one past some Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Arsenal , Chelsea fans to mention just a few.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Nov 5, 2011 8:19:26 GMT 1
There you go pilch. Signed. sealed and delivered, i'll collect in the Powerleague Bar
|
|
markshrews65
Midland League Division Two
Free to a Good Home
Posts: 204
|
Post by markshrews65 on Nov 5, 2011 9:29:33 GMT 1
Whilst Mr Ferguson celebrates 25 yrs at Man u can i take this opportunity to say that on the same day 25 years ago(nov 8th 1986) i married my beautifull wife Jeanette and if my memory is correct we played Plymouth Argyle at the Meadow (1-1),and as i was serving in the Royal Navy at the time -based in Plymouth, and missed the game aaaggghhhh....a certain Mr Nigel pearson came to our reception with a signed match ball/card from all the players . just thought i would share that info with everyone on this thread as i thought it may not deserve a thread of its own .
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 5, 2011 12:31:22 GMT 1
Yeah, must admit they are a very principled club. Stood up to Rooney in August when he cited a lack of ambition by the club would force him to seek a transfer. Then decided to stay, with a new improved contract safely stashed away in his back pocket. Rooney is now the 3rd highest paid player worldwide. Ambition or cash, you be the judge. Utd have been one of the richest clubs in the world for many years now, and have spent what they wanted whenever they wanted. Now a club is richer and spending more they throw the toys out of the pram and somehow suggest the other team's success won't be as pure or something. What a shame that football clubs don't know their rightful place. For me, as the first champions, Preston North End are the only club with any right to have that title and be successful - any other club's achievements are tainted by whatever methods they used to usurp them and are therefore meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 5, 2011 12:36:24 GMT 1
They're often ungracious in defeat and nauseatingly gloating in victory. That said any United fan who says of City 'yeah, they're good, but they should be the bloody money they've spent' is having their twenty-years-of-success cake and bloody well eating it. Disagree with just about all of your post but I'll just pick out the two bits that irk me the most. It's impossible to claim that an entire club is graceless in defeat and gloating in victory - especially over a 25 year period. That's a purely subjective judgment. It depends on your perspective. The winners will often appear gloating to the losers and losers often appear graceless. What was ungracious about United in their defeats to Barcelona in 2010 and 2011? Or gloating about their victory over them in 2008? To single out United, or any club, in this context is a nonsense. Not really. Just something about Ferguson's gum-smacking touchline smugness that gets on my tits (plus his sycophantic side kicks from Kidd to Phelan). I concede I haven't conducted an academic study into levels of smugness demonstrated by top flight managers 1990-2011,on which to gauge such a claim. But I think you'll find most neutrals find Ferguson a thoroughly dislikable character. Oh, I see, when United use their financial muscle to achieve domestic dominance, that's OK, but if other clubs have the temerity to spend more , that's immoral? Ferguson inherited a team whose captain (Bryan Robson) was a British transfer record and then broke it himself several times with the signings of Pallister, Keane, Cole, Veron and Ferdinand. Then, of course, there are the trifling amounts spent on players like Louis Saha (12.8M), Wayne Rooney (somewhere near 30M) ,Ruud van Nistelrooy (£19M) , Dimitar Berbatov (over 30M). and Jaap Stam (10.6, a record for a Dutch player at the time) Going further back, were the signings of players like Ince, Bruce, Cantona, Schmeicel, Parker. Kanchelskis, Sinclair, Yorke etc etc etc, in keeping with your alleged policy of 'not buying established players at top prices'? (admittedly they got a bargain with Cantona due to Wilkinson's uselesness) I don't say this to belittle the club's or Ferguson's acheivement - clubs like Newcastle have proven you can throw millions at it and achieve nothing. But this idea United have some sort of moral high ground over City, Chelsea et all. Pfffftttttttt. Oh well, if Brian Glanville says so... Where did you read that, his autiobiography? Or are you a recipinet of his famed magnanimity. Seriously though, I'm sure he has a good and generous side, but it's not one often seen by the general public and I'm not 'inside the game'. Are you? I've already acknowleded the fantastic football United have played under him, and I agree that, although he's had the money to bring in the very best raw talent, he develops and nurtures his players brilliantly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2011 12:38:13 GMT 1
There you go pilch. Signed. sealed and delivered, i'll collect in the Powerleague Bar You're too easy. I already got you out of the net, weighed in,and picked up the prize for catching the smallest tiddler in the pool. .
|
|
poirot
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 243
|
Post by poirot on Nov 5, 2011 13:43:52 GMT 1
Utd have been one of the richest clubs in the world for many years now, and have spent what they wanted whenever they wanted. Now a club is richer and spending more they throw the toys out of the pram and somehow suggest the other team's success won't be as pure or something. It’s an interesting debate this. I think from an objective point of view (despite having a very soft spot for United ) the argument is this: Clubs like United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Everton etc have to rely on money earned from within the game. This may be through transfers, ticket sales, commercial, match day revenue etc but they are generated from within the football industry. If their revenue streams dry up, for whatever reason, they will fail. It’s as simple as that. They have to contain their spending to within what they can earn (or borrow on commercial terms and even then, cover the interest). United and to a marginally lesser degree Arsenal and Liverpool have been hugely successful at this – due in no small measure to success on the field. The difference with Chelsea and now City is that, until the UEFA rules kick in (joke!!) they have no such restrictions. Chelsea have been running at a massive loss, year on year, since Abramovitch bought them and City are now doing the same. Either could almost afford to play without a crowd and still buy the best players in the world. This is the point that is sometimes ignored by those who say that there is no difference between the Arsenal/United/Liverpool model and that of Chelsea/City. The bottom line is that if United’s or Liverpool’s owners walked away they would remain prosperous and successful football clubs. If the same happened to Chelsea or City – unless an owner of the same wealth over – they would likely return to their former state of mediocrity in a very short period of time. Well that’s how I see it, anyway
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Nov 5, 2011 15:56:03 GMT 1
I'm not sure that is the case poirot. I think everyone is aware of how certain clubs have funded their movement in the transfer market and wages. The simple thing for me though is that all of those clubs have used the financial advantage they have in order outspend others in transfers and wages and thus gaining a huge advantage over others; buying the best players, paying the highest wages. And that for me is 'buying' the title... Where the money (provided to the manager to use for transfers and wages) comes from is by the by for me... So its not ignored, I think its just pushed by Manchester United and Arsenal fans (as I think Mike points to in his post above)...
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on Nov 5, 2011 16:03:31 GMT 1
An astonishing achievement. He will probably go down in history as the greatest manager ever.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Nov 5, 2011 16:25:19 GMT 1
Yeah, must admit they are a very principled club. Stood up to Rooney in August when he cited a lack of ambition by the club would force him to seek a transfer. Then decided to stay, with a new improved contract safely stashed away in his back pocket. Rooney is now the 3rd highest paid player worldwide. Ambition or cash, you be the judge. Utd have been one of the richest clubs in the world for many years now, and have spent what they wanted whenever they wanted. Now a club is richer and spending more they throw the toys out of the pram and somehow suggest the other team's success won't be as pure or something. What a shame that football clubs don't know their rightful place. For me, as the first champions, Preston North End are the only club with any right to have that title and be successful - any other club's achievements are tainted by whatever methods they used to usurp them and are therefore meaningless. sour grapes and sing when you're winning all in one sentence maybe you should compare man us spending to other clubs didn't city once try spending and end up in division 3 when it went pear shaped
|
|
poirot
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 243
|
Post by poirot on Nov 5, 2011 16:58:00 GMT 1
I'm not sure that is the case poirot. I think everyone is aware of how certain clubs have funded their movement in the transfer market and wages. The simple thing for me though is that all of those clubs have used the financial advantage they have in order outspend others in transfers and wages and thus gaining a huge advantage over others; buying the best players, paying the highest wages. And that for me is 'buying' the title... Where the money (provided to the manager to use for transfers and wages) comes from is by the by for me... So its not ignored, I think its just pushed by Manchester United and Arsenal fans (as I think Mike points to in his post above)... Well Stutty, if you genuinely believe that there is no difference between the clubs that have to earn the money they spend from within the game and those that just dip into their owners pocket without any regard to cost and with no restriction at all, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think your argument is extremely flawed but it’s your opinion and I respect it as such.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Nov 5, 2011 17:02:09 GMT 1
just for you mike remind me how many league titles liverpool and man city have bought between them ? oh and don't forget to bookmark this thread so that you can reply in may with ONE # Net Spend 92 - 2010 Purchased Gross Sold Nett Per Season 1 Chelsea £729,240,000 £224,275,000 £504,965,000 £25,248,250 2 Manchester City £655,180,000 £163,303,000 £491,877,000 £24,593,850 3 Liverpool £552,105,000 £325,170,000 £226,935,000 £11,346,750 4 Manchester United £483,150,000 £300,590,000 £182,560,000 £9,128,000 5 Tottenham £407,050,000 £228,717,500 £178,332,500 £8,916,625 6 Aston Villa £304,940,000 £177,075,000 £127,865,000 £6,393,250 7 Sunderland £223,515,000 £126,030,000 £97,485,000 £4,874,250 8 Fulham £146,581,000 £54,095,000 £92,486,000 £4,624,300 9 Newcastle £335,345,000 £245,525,000 £89,820,000 £4,491,000 10 Wolves £97,419,000 £40,045,000 £57,374,000 £2,868,700 11 Stoke City £79,615,000 £24,630,000 £54,985,000 £2,749,250 12 Everton £218,245,500 £165,270,000 £52,975,500 £2,648,775 13 Bolton £112,970,000 £72,670,000 £40,300,000 £2,015,000 14 West Bromwich Albion £102,880,000 £66,167,501 £36,712,499 £1,835,625 15 Arsenal £340,690,000 £319,474,000 £21,216,000 £1,060,800 16 Queens Park Rangers £40,797,500 £22,404,000 £18,393,500 £919,675 17 Swansea City £14,002,500 £6,860,000 £7,142,500 £357,125 18 Wigan £87,965,000 £81,942,500 £6,022,500 £301,125 19 Blackburn Rovers £195,462,000 £199,185,000 -£3,723,000 -£186,150 20 Norwich City £28,970,000 £47,395,000 -£18,425,000 -
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Nov 5, 2011 17:05:18 GMT 1
Has that table been adjusted for absurd inflation within transfer fees over the last few years, and the ability for some of those clubs to buy total Carolls Lemons?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 5, 2011 17:16:00 GMT 1
just for you mike remind me how many league titles liverpool and man city have bought between them ? oh and don't forget to bookmark this thread so that you can reply in may with ONE # Net Spend 92 - 2010 Purchased Gross Sold Nett Per Season 1 Chelsea £729,240,000 £224,275,000 £504,965,000 £25,248,250 2 Manchester City £655,180,000 £163,303,000 £491,877,000 £24,593,850 3 Liverpool £552,105,000 £325,170,000 £226,935,000 £11,346,750 4 Manchester United £483,150,000 £300,590,000 £182,560,000 £9,128,000 5 Tottenham £407,050,000 £228,717,500 £178,332,500 £8,916,625 6 Aston Villa £304,940,000 £177,075,000 £127,865,000 £6,393,250 7 Sunderland £223,515,000 £126,030,000 £97,485,000 £4,874,250 8 Fulham £146,581,000 £54,095,000 £92,486,000 £4,624,300 9 Newcastle £335,345,000 £245,525,000 £89,820,000 £4,491,000 10 Wolves £97,419,000 £40,045,000 £57,374,000 £2,868,700 11 Stoke City £79,615,000 £24,630,000 £54,985,000 £2,749,250 12 Everton £218,245,500 £165,270,000 £52,975,500 £2,648,775 13 Bolton £112,970,000 £72,670,000 £40,300,000 £2,015,000 14 West Bromwich Albion £102,880,000 £66,167,501 £36,712,499 £1,835,625 15 Arsenal £340,690,000 £319,474,000 £21,216,000 £1,060,800 16 Queens Park Rangers £40,797,500 £22,404,000 £18,393,500 £919,675 17 Swansea City £14,002,500 £6,860,000 £7,142,500 £357,125 18 Wigan £87,965,000 £81,942,500 £6,022,500 £301,125 19 Blackburn Rovers £195,462,000 £199,185,000 -£3,723,000 -£186,150 20 Norwich City £28,970,000 £47,395,000 -£18,425,000 - Thanks for the stats, just confirms what we all knew. Utd have spent huge amounts for years and now others do they complain. Brilliant! P.S. 1-6
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 5, 2011 17:26:57 GMT 1
Utd have been one of the richest clubs in the world for many years now, and have spent what they wanted whenever they wanted. Now a club is richer and spending more they throw the toys out of the pram and somehow suggest the other team's success won't be as pure or something. The bottom line is that if United’s or Liverpool’s owners walked away they would remain prosperous and successful football clubs. If the same happened to Chelsea or City – unless an owner of the same wealth over – they would likely return to their former state of mediocrity in a very short period of time. So the validity of any honours won by any club other than United depends on whether the business model they're operating at the time is approved of by, er, United fans? Aren't the majority of United fans unhappy with their club being run by the Glazers? PILCH - be interested to see a season-by-season breakdown of net spending from the early nineties when United re-established their dominance of English football.
|
|
poirot
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 243
|
Post by poirot on Nov 5, 2011 17:27:10 GMT 1
Thanks for the stats, just confirms what we all knew. Utd have spent huge amounts for years and now others do they complain. Priceless
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Nov 5, 2011 17:40:27 GMT 1
Ps 6-1 Mike are you really 56? Or 5/6
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Nov 5, 2011 17:56:01 GMT 1
Got his name on a stand now, Gawd bless him and all the mockneys who sit on him.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Nov 5, 2011 18:02:47 GMT 1
...be interested to see a season-by-season breakdown of net spending from the early nineties when United re-established their dominance of English football. You can get loads of information from a book called 'Pay as you Play'. Looks at all the clubs, the managers, season by season. They come up with sommat called '£XI'. This is the cost of the squad as a whole and the average cost of the starting XI. For example, in the first two seasons of the Prem Manchester United had the highest £XI and won the first two titles. They only fell short in the third season because they dropped to second, Blackburn then having the highest £XI, Manchester United the second highest £XI. From 2004-05 to 2009-10 the top two highest '£XI' have been Chelsea and Manchester United. And no one else has had a look in during that time either. Sure Manchester City are now sat at the top of that table and no doubt they'll be winning the league sometime soon too... Its a decent read, recommend it...
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 5, 2011 18:05:22 GMT 1
...be interested to see a season-by-season breakdown of net spending from the early nineties when United re-established their dominance of English football. You can get loads of information from a book called 'Pay as you Play'. Looks at all the clubs, the managers, season by season. They come up with sommat called '£XI'. This is the cost of the squad as a whole and the average cost of the starting XI. For example, in the first two seasons of the Prem Manchester United had the highest £XI and won the first two titles. They only fell short in the third season because they dropped to second, Blackburn then having the highest £XI, Manchester United the second highest £XI. From 2004-05 to 2009-10 the top two highest '£XI' have been Chelsea and Manchester United. And no one else has had a look in during that time either. Sure Manchester City are now sat at the top of that table and no doubt they'll be winning the league sometime soon too... Its a decent read, recommend it... Cheers for that mate. I hear 'How They Stole the Game' is an enlightening read on how the big clubs formed the Premier League and set us on the path to where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by lionshrew on Nov 5, 2011 21:21:48 GMT 1
Well done to Sir Alex Feguson, well deserved.
25 years is a massive milestone even considering the fact alot of managers don't get 25 months in the job.
Sir Alex a true legend in football.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2011 21:29:48 GMT 1
Yes United have spent millions, however Ferguson has been the only top-flight manager to consistently show how to manage those players.
I always think someone like David Moyes would have achieved a similar level of success if he was given equivalent resources.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Nov 5, 2011 22:01:07 GMT 1
I heard some dickhead presenter on Talksport compare Revie to Ferguson in managerial terms, I laughed so much I nearly crashed the car.
Ferguson is not only the greatest football manager of all time he is also the greatest manager/coach/ director whatever/ of any sports team at anytime in history.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 5, 2011 23:47:39 GMT 1
I heard some dickhead presenter on Talksport compare Revie to Ferguson in managerial terms, I laughed so much I nearly crashed the car. . Love the way you can veiw things in such an unbiased and logcal way.... Besides you can't do two things at once like drive and think so your telling porkies. I am now a Citeh fan btw and look forward to inviting you to the ...erm wherever they play when I nab some free tickets... Fergie is an arrogant dick so I suppose you have a role model.....
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Nov 6, 2011 0:00:28 GMT 1
Out of order Windy Ferguson, though rarely, does display the odd spot of humility.
|
|