No, no one could ever accuse you of that mate..... if anything a little too loyal. But you dont understand my opinion? That the Glazers hamstrung Uniteds spending, but not enough to stop them being competitive? I am sure SAF had more money to spend than what he actually spent too. Whether he chose not to spend it, or was forbidden by the Glazers from spending it I dont know. Or are you just choosing not to get it because the amply bossomed woman in my avatar pic is wearing a blue shirt?
. Good to see you have recovered your sense of humour. Never send you so wound up Glazers are certainly an emotive issue on here
I don't think you do understand the situation. The GGs took over the club by imposing massive debts on it. Thus significantly hampering its ability to spend on buying the very top players. . And most of the revenue was used to service the massive loans and the "consultancy " fees being paid to the GGs. But Ferguson kept the club going and were it not for him United would have been ****ed. There is no evidence that there were large amounts available for him to spend. The level of debt servicing reached several hundred millions in some years. The money from the sale of Ronaldo was not used to buy a replacement of equal or similar value (equal ability would have been unrealistic). We bought Valencia for a sum rumoured to be around £16m but most of the proceeds of that sale went into debt repayment and/or servicing the massive loans. Most pundits at the time said that United will not win another title again unless United could match City and Chelsea massive expenditure. That United still won titles post Ronaldo was due to only one man. Making full use of the resources he had at his disposal. That he won 3 titles and 2 runners up before he retired against these 2 was nothing other than miraculous.
No, i understand, United had to pay £100m odd a season back to service the debt. All I am saying is, United pull in ridiculous amounts of cash, and it was enough to pay back the debt and keep the club competitive, mostly due to Fergies astute management. I have no break down of Uniteds profit during those years, but I am sure they had enough cash left over to buy players....I think in some cases SAF just didnt need it.
Net transfer spend in the 4 years before the takeover £29.3million £27million £13.35million £21.35million The Glazers took over and in the first two seasons our net spend was £1million and £4.1million. Why? Certainly not because the squad was top notch, they took over at a time when Chelsea were champions and Arsenal had won it the previous season. We'd finished third twice in a row. Because the club was crippled by debt, net spend on transfers was almost non-existent at a time when the squad needed a fair bit of work. Fortunately Fergie is a genius and with his £5million he managed to bring in Van Der Sar, Evra, Vidic and Carrick while Rooney and Ronaldo (who had been bought pre-Glazers) kicked on and we won the title. Fergie's reward for winning the title was £26.5million and, being a genius, that was enough to win the European Cup. As Champions of Europe we went on a massive spending spree by signing Berbatov for £30.75million as part of a net spend of £33.75million. As we only managed a league title and a European Cup final appearance, the purse strings had to be tightened and the following season we had a net spend of £ MINUS 64.5million. Narrowly missing out on the title by one point, the Glazers gave Fergie license to go nuts and he spunked a phenomenal £13.55million the next season! So in the first 5 years of the Glazers' ownership United won 3 titles and 1 European Cup on a net spend of £900k. Yes really. Compare that amount of investment with the money less profitable and successful clubs were spending at the time. We should have been one of the dominant clubs in the transfer market, signing big name players for big money but Fergie was having to shop around and piece together his squad. No other manager in the modern era could have done what Fergie did. It was a miracle and it certainly wasn't part of the Glazers' business plan! They've made a billion, Fergie deserves most of that money! Since then United have invested more in players, coincidentally around the same time that massive new sponsorship deals were brought in making the Glazers even richer and "allowing" them to throw more into the transfer pot.
You dont have to convince me of Fergie's brilliance, I have always sung his praises in that respect. I also don't think the Glazers sat Fergie down and said, "Right, you can spend no more than 900k in the next 5 years" either. Like I said, I think its likely there was more money available than he spent. He just didn't need it, or want to use it. Why would he? You won 3 back to back leagues and a CL.
Please note the net transfer spend in the 4 seasons before the Glazers took over. Note the lack of transfer activity after they took over. I suspect they told Fergie that if he wanted to buy players he had to sell some to balance the books. Why would United suddenly stop investing in the squad at a time when they were, in relative terms, in a slump? Because there was no money! How many clubs are taken over and see an immediate and significant drop in transfer spending? Normally new owners want to make a splash and win the fans over by buying star players. Not the Glazers! They took over a team that had finished third twice in a row and gave the manager £1million in the first season while the team that had just won the title invested another £91million! In 1997/8 Arsenal won the league, United's response was to spend £26million In 2001/2 Arsenal won the league, United's response was to spend £27million In 2003/4 Arsenal won the league, United's response was to spend £21.35million GLAZERS ARRIVE In 2004/5 Chelsea won the league. United's response was to spend £1million In 2009/10 Chelsea won the league. United's response was to spend £13.55million You see the difference pre and post Glazers? Having won the European Cup in 2008, we got to the final again in 2009 only to be on the end of a bit of a mauling from Barca. It was clear that the team/squad needed work if we were going to stay in the European elite and win more EC's. The response was to sell Ronaldo, fair enough he wanted to go, and bank the money, not really fair enough. I doubt selling your best player and replacing him with a modest winger at a £65million profit is a strategy many clubs/managers who have been in two consecutive EC finals would actively want to pursue. Throughout his time at United when there was money to be spent Fergie wasn't afraid to spend it, breaking the British transfer record a few times. That wasn't an option under the Glazers until recently.
Apologies for getting into a serious discussion. Tell us more about the QPR away supporters and how many games you went to in the 1982/3 season. Your fascinating threads are what makes the Chelsea forum such a vibrant place (ask Chelsea Pensioner!). You can borrow that line about Fergie winning 3 PLs and 1 CL on a 900k net spend across 5 years although I suspect you'd rather bury it! #katiewinsassheclaimedameltdown
That's the bit that leads to issues that a lot of supporters struggle with. Yes, of course he has won the league with less money than his richer rivals who have splashed huge amounts. The small amounts (enforced or not) he has spent in the last few years before he retired have meant that an ageing squad has not been strengthened. He didn't feel the need as he could still get trophies and titles with them. But managers after him were bound to struggle with the squad he had left. Champions they may have been but only under him. This is what I said when he left and said the whole squad needing to be revamped at huge cost (£300m I estimated) . Not one here agreed with me. Events have subsequently shown that he needed to spend more in the last few years. I think he was aware of the huge debt the club had and the costs of servicing these loans. And he felt pressure (real or not) not to spend.
hehe, for all the ribbing you get for what United have spent, anyone could see that the squad Fergie won his last title with, and the one he left Moyes, was pretty **** relative to past United sides and needed major revamping. Those players would only ever be successful with SAF (and maybe one or two other managers), and would never be world beaters under 99% of other managers. My only question at the time was why LvG was given a blank cheque, whereas Moyes was tasked with defending the title with peanuts? Still think Moyes was treated unfairly, and has he been given all the players LvG had, who knows what he could have accomplished. For all the talk of "The United way" and letting managers settle and build their own squads, modern day "We want results NOW" mentality in football won the day there. It turns out that without SAF, the "United way" is the same way as every other successful team.....spent a **** ton of cash to get results.
The irony is that the "ribbing" mostly comes from fans of clubs who have been spunking money up the wall for 10 years while United were dominating domestic football (ie winning more than 1 title in 5 years) on a budget! Hopefully the new big spending United will continue to bring players through the ranks. LVG has shown more signs in one season of that being part of his strategy than City and Chelsea have since they came into money. Prior to the Glazers when United were spending big, bringing players through the ranks was part of the system.
Oh dear. NOF's gone nuclear Defcon 3. Hilarious. You got so wound up you went to all that trouble to research all those figures... and No One cares. certainly not Bod.
For once I'll rise to it Katie. This pretty much sums up you as a football supporter. I'm not embarrassed about being passionate about what the Glazers did to and took out of my club. You view it as a way to "score points" by claiming meltdowns etc that's fine as I don't think there's anything wrong with a football fan caring about their club. Being a fan isn't just about hurling abuse at the opposition or trawling the internet for useless, and usually incorrect, facts about another team's away support. You were called on it by one of your own the other day, which was long overdue but inevitable. For an old man you're a very modern type of Chelsea fan.
There are a few points in there. I am not sure why you find them so surprising. The GGs thought that Moyes could continue to work on a shoestring like SAF. Basically they underestimated the contrbution of Fergie and thought any decent manger could do it. It became apparent that Moyes couldn't do it last season. If they had seen some signs of improvement they could have given Moyes time but it got worse as the season progressed. The GGs realised they needed to spend really big to get a competitive team. At 7th position, the objective was to get into the CL. Not necessarily for the money but for the global image and the need for United to be in the top competitions. The United of the last 20 years which dominated the premiership in that period was Fergie's United. I have watched a few pre-Fergie ones. If I told you that they quivered in fear whenever they had to meet the scousers - either the RS or Everton, you get the picture (Im of course exagerating!) . Fergie's United was a product of one man and that era and that team have gone forever. If United want to compete with Chelsea and City, they have to behave like them and compete with them. End of.
