Seriously though, NOF has echoed and expanded on what I was saying briefly last night. The Glazers have essentially gradually ****ed the United squad in the time they have been here and are paying the price now. They couldn't literally 'pay the price' previously as they didn't have the money, now they do. Fortunately for them Alex Ferguson happened to be in charge and continued to win as he always did. Unfortunately though he was unable to refresh his squad as was his previous MO and so it deteriorated before our eyes, or at least before the eyes of those who knew what they were seeing and paying attention, and so the squad he handed to Moyes was on its arse. Not his fault, but the Glazers fault. As Christian has correctly stated over the last year or so, it'll take them half a billion to sort out. Fortunately for them, our 'partners' (or mug sponsors to anyone else) will be the ones playing that price while the Glazers continue to award themselves enormous dividends.
So you agree that Uniteds failings last season was down to the Glazers and not Moyes....so I ask, why, when they realised SAF could not be replicated, was Moyes not given this warchest, why was he kicked out on his ass and replaced, when its probable LvG would have been just as gash last year with the squad Moyes had....
Last season's failings were partly the Glazers' fault for not investing in the squad properly for years and partly Moyes' fault for being out of his depth and not being able to handle the demands and pressures of managing a big club. By the end Moyes had lost the dressing room (and Giggs). A second season was unthinkable. When it became apparent that it was an overhaul job the club had to look for a manager who had developed teams/squads at a big club before. With no CL football they also needed a manager who would stand a better chance of attracting players to the club in what was a key season (of course the vast amounts of money paid to selling clubs and players helped!). Moyes had failed to attract players with CL football! Now that LVG has CL football he's able to call people like Depay and in one conversation tie up a deal. Could Moyes do that? Yes but only with Fellaini.
I was one of those who didnt believe in sacking Moyes. What I can say is that things weren't as simple as you've stated. The quality of our football was becoming worse with every game. Players who had been pivotal in our past success were losing their confidence and a shadow of their former selves - Carrick being a prime example. It was clear they no longer believed in him, or themselves under him. I honestly believe that our defenders have never recovered from that. The damage done to the likes of Smalling, Jones and Evans I think is irreperable. How many games were we behind within 3 minutes??? His style of football was one dimensional and predictable and in the end our performances and results were getting worse. That all played its part in his sacking...along with finishing 7th.
This. A mixture of players losing their mojo under Moyes and Moyes himself being overwhelmed and overawed in managing such a big club.
United would have performed much better without the parasites draining hundreds of millions from it. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...1billion-from-manchester-united-10244576.html
Metro: Liverpool have spent more transfer money in last 10 years than Manchester United but are still lagging behind Red Devils. United have owners who plunged the club in to an insane amount of debt and have been penny pinching ever since their arrival, until last summer’s seventh-placed finish forced them in to action. If you go back ten years, to when United had just 15 titles, and compare the spending between the two clubs, Liverpool have outspent United in seven out of ten seasons. http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/13/liver...-are-still-lagging-behind-red-devils-4985566/ In other news, Leicester have announced that more tickets are available for their game against QPR as the away team have returned some of their allocation. #meltdown
Tbh I think you're being a little selective there. You've missed off: In 1991/2 Leeds won the league, United's response was to spend £215,000 In 1994/5 Blackburn won the league, United's response was to spend -£4,100,000 (Ince was sold in 1995) In 2011/12 City won the league, United's response was to spend £51 million In 2013/14 City won the league, United's response was to spend £104 million And as I said earlier, the plc admitted they spent the entire budget for 03-05 in summer 2004 on Rooney. So it's not like the £1 million spending in summer 2005 would have been any higher under the plc. True, but if you go back 25 years, to when Utd hadn't won any PL titles and compare the spending between the two clubs, Liverpool outspent Utd in 10 out of 15 seasons (1990 to 2005). Liverpool outspending us to do worse than us is hardly a new concept, regardless of who our owners are.
Not sure you can compare the era around the establishment of the PL (ie the last Division 1 season and the first PL season) with the late 90's and after. The advent of the PL and Sky made clubs a lot richer as the 90's progressed and transfer fees started to climb dramatically. The season you're talking about we signed Cantona for £1.2million and the British transfer record was £5.5million. The following season we made a major signing in Roy Keane who had to decide between the two top clubs in the league. He cost £3.75million and our net spend was £2.85million. Up until 98/99 when we spent £26million to get the title back from Arsenal and win the treble, the most we'd spent in the PL era was £2.9million. Different times. I'll give you 95/96 but let's be honest it was a freak occurrence and the general opinion was that Fergie had gone mad and you'll win nothing with kids. I freely admit to watching us lose to Villa on the opening day of the season and thinking we were in trouble. The fact that you've had to go back 20+ years to come up with examples of why the Glazers haven't penny pinched says it all really. I also said that in recent years the club spent more on transfers as the revenue had increased so much that the Glazers "allowed" more investment in players. If there's one thing the cretins deserve any credit for it's how they've maximised United's earnings through sponsorship etc which now means that even though we're still saddled with debt we can compete at the top of the transfer market. Had Fergie not won so much on a shoestring United would not still have the same global appeal and earning power. I'd be interested to read the info on the Rooney transfer. Why was the PLC only able/prepared to spend £21million across two (three?) seasons having spent an average of £23million in the previous three seasons?
Tbh I don't think the performance in the previous season was as much of a determining factor in how much SAF spent and who he wanted to buy. 95/96 was a bit of a freak occurrence - but it summed up SAF's attitude in the transfer market. If he wasn't happy with the players he could buy then he wouldn't buy, regardless of whether we came first, second or wherever. His biggest transfer binges actually came in summer 2001, summer 2003 and summer 2007, all after seasons in which we'd walked the league title by a fair distance. And I've not really gone back 20+ years - summer 2012 and 2014 show they have been willing to spend big when faced with big challenges, much like the plc did in 1998. Ultimately the only test of the owners imo is not how much is spent, but whether the manager gets who he wants. in summers 2005 and 2006 we only spent a net of around £5 million, but bought the players who were the mainstay of the team that dominated English football for the next seven years. Not, imo, because SAF was forced to do this but because, as in 1995, he looked at the expensive high profile players in the market, and decided to go a different route. I guess that's what the argument is always going to come down to - whether you view us spending small amounts in years like 95, 00, 05 and 06 as being a result of the manager's own choice or him being forced by the owners. In the absence of concrete evidence, which to be frank I'd expect SAF to have stuck in his book given that he basically spilled the beans on everyone else he's ever worked with, I don't believe the Glazers brought any more financial pressure than the plc with the shareholder battles and profit targets. Speaking of which, http://files.investis.com/manutd/presentations/mut04_final_abp.pdf Specifically: Page 4: "Since the end of the financial year we completed the acquisition of Wayne Rooney from Everton...as a result we have now spent next summer’s transfer budget unless players are disposed of to realise cash for re-investment" Page 28: "It also emphasises the critical nature in terms of managing future profits of maintaining the balance between home-grown players (for which there is no acquired cost) and the net investment in acquired players" Page 29: "The primary target each season is to qualify for the following season’s UEFA Champions League" So, profits ahead of investment in acquired players, and the main target being fourth place. I suppose you can say that in favour of the plc - at least they were honest that under their stewardship we were essentially Arsenal with a better manager.
I'll be honest, my own opinion is based on observation of United and what I know to be true/have been told. I can't quote it and I can't go back through transfer spend/non spend to prove or disprove any theory so it comes down to point 2 in bold, whether the individual believes that the Glazers curtailed spending. Or whether you don't. I do. I see no reason why Ferguson would now turn on the Glazers, he did well enough of out of the whole thing and they could have walked in and torn up the book and got rid and started from scratch but they didn't. Him staying was mutually beneficial so I firmly believe he has merely kept schtum. I DO believe the Glazers brought more financial pressure than the plc. Where were they getting the money to throw at players considering they barely raised the money to buy the club? They/the club were £800 million in debt at this point. They would need to service the debt/make some money before they could splurge on transfers, so they didn't. Point 1 in bold I think reinforces whet I have said all along. Fergie never stood still or rested on his laurels so, even when winning the league, he spent money on refreshing his squad with big buys. That stopped in his final ten years, bar 2007 as you've suggested (I haven't checked details). In his last years his squad aged and deteriorated. Those in crucial positions weren't replaced properly or were replaced with up and coming potential. Summer 2012 and 2014, well 2012 was rvp, who Fergie identified as the one player who could be the difference in winning the league. He was it, and it worked for that one season. Fergie promptly retired. 2014 is since Fergie left, when it became patently apparent that in someone else's hands we'd be mid table so they've thrown money at it. To protect their asset. They also now have that money.
Fair enough, I guess the plc were bored of success and just wanted to make money. Doesn't change the fact that up until the new sponsorship deals kicked in a few years ago, the Glazers were sucking the transfer budget out of United to pay off loans. You choose to think that Fergie didn't want to spend more money on players, I choose to think that given his track record he was denied the opportunity to spend more money on players. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Did you know Gerrez has made 67700 posts on this website, a full 20k more than any other? Just saying #getafuckinglife
I can agree to disagree. Tbh I doubt SAF would have stuck around if they'd told him he couldn't buy the players he wanted, after all he almost resigned in 2002 then decided to stay and have another crack at Europe. He may have been under spending restrictions, as he was under the plc but for different reasons, but if they'd really affected our chance of success then I think he'd have told them to **** right off. Either way, I agree than neither the plc nor the Glazers were great owners (although it seems hard to find great owners nowadays) and our success has been due to SAF and despite, rather than because of, either of them.
That era has gone. A bit like the British empire, no more. Amazing how in retrospect he brought so much success against such huge odds. We just need to win the title next season and be as half as successful in the next ten years
