United & Ferguson
- Thread starter Ryan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
That we have spent big and badly is without doubt over the years and through the managers. There has also been the subtle difference in pulling power and out and out spending power. United were able to attract Young for less money than we had to pay for Downing because of where they are and what theyve been collecting every year....To mak matters even more difficult during just the last ten years 2 other teams have been able to buy whoever they want with open chequebooks, Chelsea and then subsequently City.
Im one of the posters who has whined that we never seem to buy top top quality at top prices but the truth is that we probably havent been able to do that for a while now due to the way the market is, In as much as I truly doubt we would have been able to buy one or two players with our 80M of the last year even if we had wanted to.
We need to spend smarter, unless another oil rich state decides they want a plaything.
You realise we outspent them and everyone else bar Chelsea and City during Rafa's reign and never finished above them ?
We didn't spend enough then, did we?
And our spending was always trying to catch up with the big spending United have been doing for decades.
Ferguson has spent more than us during his tenure on transfer fees and vastly more on wages.
We spent more than we could afford. And enough to win a title.
There's no use downplaying Utd's net spend by quoting the 80M they got for Ronaldo, as the 50M we got for Torres makes ours even more embarrassing.
And in the same way taking him out distorts the team's output. Taking Ronaldo out also meant taking out 40 goals a season. that happened, and Ferguson still won them the title and got them to the Champions League final.
Works both ways.
No, it just looks that way.
But if the only team to spend more than us during Rafa's reign, Chelsea, were also the only other team that finished above man Utd... does that not suggest that we didn't spend enough. Man City have come along and spend more than Chelsea and are now in a position to finish above man Utd.
Therefore, in order to finish above Man Utd you have to spend more than Chelsea & Man City.
Anyway... I thought we'd established beyond a doubt that Ferguson sold his soul and made a faustian pack with the devil decades ago.
Bully for you Rosco. You win.
Nothing "weird" about it. We have certainly dropped some major ricks in the market, but we haven't been alone in doing that and we haven't had the margin for error which has clearly been crucial in helping the Chavs and Citeh to get where they are.
Excxept that the right players are generally very, very expensive and we'd have to spend as much as City or Chelsea to get them.
Arsenal's model of not buying young potential instead of expensive top qiality has won they absolutely fuck all other than plaudits. Same for Spurs.
If winning things and being better than Man Utd is the goal, then Chelsea, Man City and us are the only ones who have gotten close to doing it in the last 5 years wiyth any degree of consistencey.
No suprise that all 3 have invested more in players than anyone else - because you have to to catch up to man Utd... whereas they can spend less to maintain their position. Every other team is trying to buy 3 or 4 world class players, while man Utd can focus on one position at a time.
.... but we all know this...
You know i mean Robbie Keane right?
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
