oh and re ferguson and utds strategy.. i find it simplistic to blame the galzier and them having no money. IMO this started when RA took over chelsea and outbid utd... they have bought players for 30mil (rooney) but they have spent on younge rplayers while other clubs that utd can't compete with have bought galacticos. utd have spent the dosh when the player is right but will not spend for the wages like city not silly unjustifable fees on players like hulk or torres. does that say they've no money? or dare i say it having some discipline and living within their means... which is a big means. their spend last summer does suggest when the player there they will go for it.
I don't believe i am. look back to 2005 or so and can we really say that chelsea didn't look to be bidding on utd "targets" what did ferguson do to regain the league from chelsea? he had RVN, rooney, ronaldo already... evra, vidic, rio... they only had to buy carrick yet spent a whopping 17mil on that guy. having on the league they go buy anderson and nani for 17mil each and get hargreaves in, again a reasonbale spend but from a position of strength and you can see them investing in future talent while rooney and ronaldo start to take off big time as thier previous "young" buys then in 2008 they buy berbaflop for 30mil and invest yet again in youth in the da silvas. in 2009 they buy valencia for 17mil but sell ronaldo for 80mil... is this really a sign of the glaziers and mounting debts or just wishful thinking. in they go buy in 2010 smalling, bebe (joke) and hernandez last year thy bought yong, jones and de gea! the message? 1. they are not broke like some of us wish they were. 2. they are spending at the level FSG would like us to spend at. 3. they are buying quality younger layers but don't always get it right, just the majority of the time as they give time and patience to young players I simply will not but the hooey that utd are broke and can't spend. the evidence points to me to a side that has been investing in youth and bringing quality youth through for a VERY long time indeed. It points to a settled, achieving, quality squad that has been supplemented with said youth and the odd big name buy as time as progressed. Finally this brings me neatly back to us.... cos we don't care about utd i am merely pointing them out as an example of where the model we seem to be using is working...... WE don't have a settled, achieving, quality squad to build on do we? We have highlighted gaps that require filling especially upfront and in midfield. Henderson is a prime example of how a kid can suffer in that situation as he got over played and played in all sorts of positions covering injuries. ... look at the weight of expectation that is on sterlings shoulders... that shouldn't be. he should come in and be able to play freely when given a change, gain experience and then blossom. Look at the set of balls it took lucas to have to survive the abuse as he got over played... In short I dearly hope we build a squad up that gives the likes of shelvey, sterling and henderson time to grow, learn and blossom. The type of squad that would allow kelly to continue to grow and revert to CB where he could be awesome... there robinson and flanagn can grow up and get reay to come in at 20 not 17.
United spend well because Fergie has longevity - he knows what he needs and can chop and change a fluid squad every season. It's unlike any club bar Arsenal at the moment, and thankfully Wenger has nothing of Fergie's ambition or drive.
that is a VERY good point. Utd do have that nice luxury of a driven manager who gets the bes tout of guys time and again and the situation that we faced with risse (rare for rafa) never seems to happen to ferguson. We could say that while back in 2005 they had a team witH VDS, neville, vidic, rio, evra, scholes, gigs, ronaldo, rooney, RVN and so forth that now their team does look less capable and that would be fair but equally one could say they are on the cusp of those younger players taking on the mantle. THAT IS NOT MY CENTRAL ARGUMENT. My point is they have followed the strategy that Henry wants to follow by buying young quality players for a good amount of money and have brought them on to be stars.... they have the revenue streams we crave as well and prove its possible to complete with mad billionaires. The problem i see with Henry right now is we seem to think, or at least the conventional wisdom of commentators is, that our team now after one years investment (and some flops) is good enough to just go buy yuonger players and we'll get to utds level. I cannot see who that will work when we have so many obvious gaps needing immediate filling. I really really hope we spend wisely and well for rodgers this summer and get the 4/5 players needed to make this new style that's mooted work.
As far as I am aware nobody has said that United have no money - that would be a very silly comment to make. What is important is to define exactly when the United executives decided to concentrate upon paying-down their debts and the consequences of that decision. That has been the driving point for all of their other investment decisions. If you wish to draw parallels with corporate strategic decisions then I would liken it to that made by Sainsburys when they were the biggest supermarket chain. They decided to adopt a MOR (middle of the road) policy to consolidate their position. Unfortunately for them Tesco and Asda adopted an aggressive growth policy. The consequence was that Sainsbury slipped from their leadership position to become number 4 in the rankings. The same consequences are now happening to United. That does not mean that they will make poor purchase decisions. It does mean that they have to adopt a far more pragmatic approach to their purchases - and has been seen over the last 2 seasons, to their style of play. It does mean that they have had to accept that their resources do not stretch to dominating either the Premiership or the CL. It may also mean that they have now to accept that they are no longer 'certainties' but are now one of the 'there or there about' sides - that has classic signs of the Liverpool slide! Now I have deliberately stayed away from talking about the strategic debt problem at United as I don't want to see this thread invaded but the influences on their total corporate strategy have been substantial.
no not on this thread, but it does seem to be a rather too commonly held view in LFC circles in my view. I for one don't believe it and think half the time whenever i give utd any credit people throw it up. I don't believe they are concentrating on driving down debts at the expense of their team though. they are indeed reducing debts and that's a matter of public record. It is my belief that they are pursuing exactly the same strategy Henry wants to get us on and that is one that works within its means. I think highlighting utd spending over the past 7 years shows they've invested heavily in players but they've invested in the long term and from a position where gaps in their squad were plugged with one player as one went out.. eg RVN and berbaflop for example. My firm belief if they looked at chelsea's madness (eg duff for 17mil sold for 5, Sinclair etc etc) and didn't want to compete with them so chose this route. Ferguson in 1995 went with youth and it paid off, i think he's always had an eye for talent and has enjoyed the policy too. I can't see the supermarket analogy... while it has some merit there is one big flaw. Tesco, asda and teh rest are not man city nor are they Chelsea. They have not given product to the customer for nothing to get them in. they may have built new stores, lowered prices etc they have made profits doing it. City and Chelsea are unsustainable models driven by pure and utter madness. Chelsea have debts that make them a total shell company, they could never pay them back but by some miracle of accounting RA is able to drop hundreds of millions in as guarantees and the banks are letting them away... It cannot go on. City had 112% of turnover spend on wages in last report we got to see. 112% before transfers! No supermarket has posed that issue to another. The point you make about taking a wishy washy middle of the rod view (not high end not bargain bucket) is attractive but Utd haven't done that, I think they've gones down the long term road and they will have a team each year that will compete..... and in doing so they will win thier share. I cannot see them ever dominating as they did for the previous say 15 years from 1993 to 2008 say... chelsea and city will be there or there abouts every year and while they play off each other for big buys and stars and try to play galactico football utd are likely to slip in with competitive team based footabl and win stuff. I am quite firmly of the opinion, but it is my opinion, that utd can pay 30mil for a player anytime they want, but the right player has to turn up and utd will not pay silly unsustainable city wages to players unless they are rooney like. If sneidjer is really available and city are not in his ear with 300k per week to beg him to come to them utd would buy him.... equally if hazard was not offered similar by chelsea utd could buy him... the real test is when ferguson buys a midfielder will be buy a kid like henderson or will he buy a star. He needs a star playmaker to make his team tick.. if he got sniedjer or modric for 30-40mil could you stand over your view? thats the question.
You still appear to be confusing many things. The United's corporate strategy is an over-arcing policy that effects ALL of their activities both on and off the pitch. Whilst strategy is long term in essence it has to be flexible enough to change to meet circumstances. Hence, I will stick to my contention. You hark back to Ferguson's selection of 'The Kids'. Firstly that was forced upon him due to United's then financial situation. Secondly, that was well before the Glazer ownership and has nothing to do with the present strategy. Your dismissal of an MOR strategy as "wishy washy" appears to demonstrate a misunderstanding of strategy in general. It is far from being wishy washy. Whilst I believe that it was the wrong strategy for Sainsburys to adopt it was adopted at almost the same time by Unilever with great success. For Sainsbury it could be said that they misread the competititve environment that they were in. This, I believe is where the similarity with United is at its closest. I expect that the outcome will be similar in that it's far from being the end of United but it is the begining of the end of United's dominance. Still, it is good to explore different idead if onlt because the truth may be found somewhere between them.
@John_W_Henry: it's Liverpool: Anfield http://t.co/to2qeacn This was tweeted by Henry in the last hour. Show the direction he wants to go???
I like this guys vision of a rebuilt Anfield. Obviously there are some fairly hefty local obstructions to its achievement. I'm assuming that this is yet another indication that Henry is committed to this route when all is said & done. His (i assume FSGs) tactics are interesting: he is making his views known through supporters blogs & forums. It's almost like he's trying to say "this is the community's idea & we support it" rather than the other way round. Is it an attempt to build pressure on the council do you think?
I think Henry favoured restructuring from day one, he never seemed keen on a new build to me He can try to put as much pressure on the council as he wants but I'd imagine they won't support financially and don't have a lot of say if they are not financially involve.
Ok so if we are able to do as he says, and go two tiers on three sides and one large Kop. How many seats is that likely to add?
Any architects on here? I like the idea of all the different options; I know it's Utopian but the idea of having really nice family areas with cafes etc. Or the idea of the pub supporter village. I could honestly see me & a group of mates heading to this if we couldn't get tickets for the actual match. It would be like a great combination of the pub feel & being part of the whole Anfield vibe. Obviously it would be slightly over priced, but as long as it was done well & had the right feel it could be great for a lads weekend or if you did get tickets, it was a great victory & you wanted to carry on: I'd assume the revenue could be good too. It's all about quality control though.
What JH is envisaging in his Tweet is a totally new way of looking at a football ground. A true one-stop shop to meet the needs of differing groups within our supporters in both pricing and services. A ground that changes from being a facility to merely watch football to a facility that in itself will capture an audience for the majority of the day. I don't know if it is feasible but it's a hell of an idea. I also get the impression that he is not so much wanting the Council to actually put money in directly but to join with the club by doing what they are able to do - permitting and facilitating.
Sorry Dave; that's what I meant about pressure on the council. This vision isn't merely about rehashing a stadium to make it bigger. Which doesn't sound that great a sole reason if you're trying to get enforced sales & demolition crews in. But if you give it an almost Olympic village feel, with facilities that go beyond match weekend; gyms, sports halls for corporate & community use etc as well as the aforementioned pubs, cafes, sports shops & whatever else marketing boys can come up with. This could create jobs both in the area & the necessary supporting chain. It is a novel & exciting approach.
That wont happen in the Anfield area frank,imagine the Utopia of John Henry's vision surrounded by street after street of terraced houses and real world people with unemployent,poverty etc. Henry's vision would only work with a new build stadium at a cherry picked location in a non heavily populated area,
