Force of Attraction

[Robonoodle]

I seem to remember Van Gaal was touted as a possible manager or DoF for us before Rodgers was appointed, and there was some merriment when he became "The One After the Chosen One" at Old Trafford.

I also know there is an element of revisionist shite in this, but would he actually have made a difference to us? Would a manager like him have been able to attract the kind of players that could have really made a difference to our "project"? Would he have brought the gravitas and sense of self needed to manage and motivate players? Is this one of the biggest failings of hiring a "young and hungry" manager like Rodgers; the inability to bring top-tier players, and to get a disparate bunch to play as a team?

Instead of drinking myself into a stupor last night with the wife's fruity white wine (like drinking fecking air freshener) to dull the pain, I could have been living high on Aldi's £3.99 Merlot instead.

 

[cloggypop]

Would we be paying the same wages and transfer fees?

 

[Robonoodle]

Would we be paying the same wages and transfer fees?

We could have afforded to. Whether we would have had the will is another matter.

 

[mark1975]

I don't think we could have afforded to. We've severely reduced our wage bill, if anything. We've lost five high earners in Suarez, Sterling, Johnson, Carragher & Gerrard. Not when you compare that to some of the fees they paid and the wages they were giving to Di Maria and Falcao. There's no way we're giving anyone £240k pw anytime soon.

 

[Robonoodle]

I don't think we could have afforded to. We've severely reduced our wage bill, if anything. We've lost five high earners in Suarez, Sterling, Johnson, Carragher & Gerrard. Not when you compare that to some of the fees they paid and the wages they were giving to Di Maria and Falcao. There's no way we're giving anyone £240k pw anytime soon.

TBF Di Maria and Falcao were aberrations at the top slice of deals, so it's unlikely we'd have gone for them. According to Soccerbase ManU spent over £170m while we paid over £160m. My thought is that if we'd had a more widely known and respected manager, instead of spunking the Suarez money on a bucketful of mediocrity, perhaps (and this is all speculation of course), we could have bought a smaller number of higher-quality players.

 

[Judge Jules]

That's a definite possibility IMO. I've never signed up to FSG's preference for a younger manager, pretty much whoever they went for, and this is one of the reasons why. At the same time, specifically appointing van Gaal would have worried me. He has a history of tearing everything up by the roots and starting again, while p!$$ing off everybody in sight, and I'd have been worried that in appointing him we were getting another Souness.

For all these reasons Ancelotti would be far and away my first choice now.

 

[keniget]

I don't think we could have afforded to. We've severely reduced our wage bill, if anything. We've lost five high earners in Suarez, Sterling, Johnson, Carragher & Gerrard. Not when you compare that to some of the fees they paid and the wages they were giving to Di Maria and Falcao. There's no way we're giving anyone £240k pw anytime soon.

Out of interest is there some table showing what our wage bill was / is over the last few years?

I'd be interested to see if / just how much it has gone down.

 

[Mystic]

I don't think we could have afforded to. We've severely reduced our wage bill, if anything. We've lost five high earners in Suarez, Sterling, Johnson, Carragher & Gerrard. Not when you compare that to some of the fees they paid and the wages they were giving to Di Maria and Falcao. There's no way we're giving anyone £240k pw anytime soon.

Sterling wasn't a high earner.

 

[Robonoodle]

Out of interest is there some table showing what our wage bill was / is over the last few years?

I'd be interested to see if / just how much it has gone down.

From the Independent


Premier League clubs' financial figures for 2013/14 (2012/13 in brackets), in order of wage bills, all sums in £ sterling.

• Manchester United: wages 215.8m (180.5m); turnover 433.2m (363.1m); wages to turnover ratio 50 per cent (50 per cent); profit after tax 23.8m (146.4m).
• Manchester City: wages 205m (233.1m); turnover 346.5m (271m); wages to turnover ratio 59 per cent (86 per cent); loss after tax -22.9m (-51.6m loss).
• Chelsea: wages 192.7m (172.6m); turnover 319.8m (255.8); wages to turnover ratio 60 per cent (67 per cent); profit after tax 18.4m (-49.4m loss).
• Arsenal: wages 166.4m (154.5m); turnover 298.7m (242.8m); wages to turnover ratio 56 per cent (64 per cent); profit after tax 7.3m (5.8m).
• Liverpool: wages 144m (131m); turnover 256m (206m); wages to turnover ratio 56 per cent (63 per cent); profit after tax 0.4m (-49.9m loss).
• Tottenham: wages 100.4m (96.1m); turnover 180.5m (147.4m); wages to turnover ratio 56 per cent (65 per cent); profit after tax 65.3m (1.5m).

 

[Lippy]

Sterling wasn't a high earner.

Well, football IS like modern day slavery remember.