Thanks. So let's review your list Ranieri - £196million: less than LVG Redknapp - £207million: less than LVG Pardew (a bit less, but at Newcastle... Wow) - £142million: less than LVG Rafa - £248million: less than LVG Rodgers - £293million: more than LVG, we have a winner and he's a well recognised fraud and a numpty! Hughes - £272million: another winner! AVB (bit less at individual clubs, significantly more combined) - £88million: why is he on a list when it's about individual clubs (despite your caveat)? So LVG has so far spent less than Rodgers and Hughes and achieved the same/less. Do we ignore the fact that Rodgers blew the money across 3 seasons (and assume LVG will spent less than £40million between now and the end of his third season - unlikely). Hughes I'll give you. Even allowing for the fact City went mental at that time, it was an astonishing amount for him to spend and probably explains why he's gone on to manage Fulham, QPR and Stoke (who just played us off the park). However, if LVG stays until the end of this or next season I still think he will claim the record as the manager who spent the most in the PL and still failed to win it. I honesty don't get how you can defend his record so far. It's astonishingly **** particularly when you take into account the style of football.
I think you need to lie down. You must be pretty tired from your constant fact spinning. LVG spent close to £300m and won **** all while Raneiri spent less and managed more success than Van Gaal.
£196million by 2003 is a huge amount of money, even by today's standards. Back then it was insane. £146million at Newcastle is equally mental. Over £200million at Spurs is also mental, as were each of those mentioned. The simple fact is we had to spend. Mistakes were made, the forgetful Di Maria being the biggest. I was countering your point that he should be winning the title based on what he's spent. There's far more to it than that and simply spending big, doesn't always lead to success. And yeh, we will spend even more but were the richest club in the league and until recently, had often been well below the leagues biggest spenders. So we had to play catch up and buy a whole new team in a year. Have you seen the prices of players? We weren't getting away with £100million were we? Anyway, I did say they have spent more and did not clarify that it was in relation to the time and club.
I think you should revisit Ranieris time if you think the achieved more. You're in for a shock. And yes he spent less. But look at the dates. Compare it with other teams at the time and it takes on a whole new look. It was and still is an absolutely massive amount of money, £153million of it in one season. That's more than van gaal spent last summer and considering Ranieri got sacked, neither you or I have any idea how much he would have spent if Chelsea had stuck with him.
During Ranieri's tenure at Chelsea Fergie spent £140million and he didn't have one summer of massive rebuilding. There's also no denying that after spunking all that money Ranieri went on to have a good season, probably the best one Chelsea had had in over 40 years. The transfer market was a bit mad back then (Rio for £30million was considered completely mad), it went into a bit of a lull for a while after that before going properly insane in the past few years. I agree that the money spent by Newcastle and Spurs was big but it was across several seasons and, as much as I hate the net spend argument, they are two clubs who do sell to buy which is why they achieve the sum total of **** all.
I think what UIR has missed in what everyone has posted is that Ranieri only had 1 season after spending that money (2003-2004). He seems to be counting his spending in the summer of 2003 but taking Ranieri's WHOLE 3/4 years performance at the club into account. And using that to compare Van Gaal's projected 3 years at United.
I thought that when you'd win it might kick start a winning run for you but 2-1 against struggling Swansea doesn't fill me with too much confidence now.
Yes but it means we will never know. Was he rightly sacked? No. He had just given then their best season in decades as you put but that's Chelsea. Were not Chelsea, and that's only a good thing.
Swansea had picked up a little and were unbeaten in 3 apparently. Not a great side but been a pain for us recently. Today was about winning though. After 8 without, you can't be too picky really.
I'm sure I've come across your predictions from yester-year before.... OK sarcasm on my part based on earlier posts BTW the performance today has little to no bearing on us moving forward. It was a win, long overdue, but the performance, which ultimately dictates form and consistency, was still dire and indicative of a rollercoaster remainder of the season on the horizon. Only a baffoon will take today's result as anything more meaninful than 3 points and that's it.
Exactly what I was saying only worded differently Treble. Had you won it 3-0 or 4-0 I'd say you're back to form but 2-1?
I would love that to happen IF it was based on us playing fluid, free-flowing passing football through the middle of the park as much as the wing play. If it was more intricate than the one-dimensional tripe we're being served up. What I mean can best be explained is by the last side we scored 4 against - Club Bruges iirc. Did we win 3-0 against Everton, not sure? But both teams had one thing in common. Both were not only naive defensively, they went forward gung ho. What followed immediately after each of these games, is the same turjid 5hite we've seen over the last month or two. And that's bcos the tripe Van Gaal has us playing works well against open sides, but doesn't work against well-organised defenses who allow us to play in front of them. Teams have us sussed, and now go one step further by actually poking our defences knowing full well we're toothless going forward. So while I'd like those sorts of results, they're not the be all and end all. They have to show that it was due to our football rather than the opposition's naivity. Otherwise, it's always going to be a false dawn. Much like the result today might very well be.
Very astute observations. You've had so much success over the last ,what, 25 years with Fergie was it that that sort of success was going to be impossible to maintain. LVG seems to go for big money stars and that doesn't always work and I noticed that RvP was starting to lose his form and the momentum you had was starting to diminish then. I've been watching football since 1961 and Utd have always played an expansive attacking game and concentrated on a youth policy which seems to be missing under LVG. I also don't think JM is the man for you. I hate to say but I think a Chelsea might be coming for you. Oh and I probably am who you think I am from yesteryear. I predicted on the old BBC 606 that Chelsea would have a relegation battle soon. Oh how I was mocked and insulted, even by my own Spurs supporters. But here we are, Chelsea struggling, old Dawn's right again.
