Fergie can't be credited with Utd's stadium improvement's or giving them their brand, Shankly took our club by the scruff of the neck and modernised it from top to bottom. Jock Stein lead a team of players all born within 15 miles of Celtic Park and won the European Cup beating the best team in Europe(Inter Milan) before any English club managed it(no knighthood for Jock), the following seasons winning manager was knighted. Jenner's is right the honours system is a farce.
You do realise that Ferguson spent less - both gross & net, than Liverpool during his 26 year tenure don't you? So if he had the some of the Worlds best to choose from then it was down to what he created, as the purchases were self funded from the dynasty he created. The mere fact that the man built a succession of winning sides over a quarter of a century period & during a period in football when the oil money arrived & Sky changed the whole face of football. Yet Ferguson just kept winning, year in year out. His achievement dwarfs anything else we've ever seen in the game imo. As nice a bloke & such a massive success as Paisley was at Anfield, I don't think you can put him ahead of Ferguson, Paisley followed the man who built the Liverpool dynasty, Ferguson created his own.
More controlled than expected It's a tough debate and obviously, I'm a tad biased. Paisley, Shanks and fungus are the top three. Who is numero uno is moot.
JB / PMK... I did say "Although neither really match up in a direct comparison". In other words the direct comparisons with Shanks (building) and Paisley (success rate) to Fergie are a no contest, I think the thing that puts Fergie up there is the fact he did both. I'd obviously choose our lads over Fergie anyway.
There's no question that a host of average managers wasted a ton of money and that previous LFC owners failed to see the direction of football and failed to invest (or sell) at the right time or to the right people. But this doesn't make Fergie any greater, it makes the managers of the time poorer. We suffered from chronic mis-management at every level (with the exception of Rafa who had to work with his hands tied behind his back). Truth is, AF benefited from the businessmen behind the club and relatively weak competition. His situation was unique...and he nearly blew that! That said, once he managed to properly benefit from his position, he showed his class and for sure is the greatest manager of recent time.....just no of all time
Comparing Fergie's spend to Liverpool's in the same time frame is a bit daft IMO. We had eight (Kenny twice) managers in that time and each one attempted to buy their own team/squad. Obviously Kenny was already in post when Fergie arrived but he more than made up for it with his spend in his second stint
I ain't taking nothing away from Fergies 's achievements but Utd already had the brand and the biggest average home attendances plus they were signing big name players before Fergie took over. The same can't be said in Shankly's case.
Not when his achievements are being downgraded with some inaccurate portrayal of an uneven playing field it isn't. You spent more, the fact that you didn't spend it as well, or that a succession of managers were deemed to have failed & were replaced, doesn't alter that simple fact.
Why? Who did he have to compete with when he won his first title? Not one at the time could put a sustained challenge together. He was great but benefited from a distinct lack of competition at a time when Utd's financial strength came to the fore....
I know others had used it but my point was it shouldn't be compared at all because its not a balance comparison. IMO, looking at spends compares the running of the two clubs, not the managers abilities.
I don't have much knowledge of football at the time when Paisley was around, but what I would say about fungus is that he created a dynasty and when things looked like they were going bad in the mid 2000's with chelseas oil money and Man City, he has come back and done it again winning titles through out. As for the european cups example, it is far harder to retain the champions league as seen recently where no one has managed to defend it. As mentioned not sure about during Paisleys time but Fergie had to combat the millions spent by the Italians in the 90s when they were the dominant force and where globalisation of players is a much more common thing to the bank loans and galacticos of real mardrid and barca. For me Fergie is the number 1 manager
Draft argument tobes, one manager with his own vision responsible for player purchases over a 26 year period as opposed to eight managers with differing views and tactics intermittently over the same period. If it was like for like either way you can't honestly believe the amounts, outcome would be the same.
19 other managers, same as every other manager who's ever lifted the title. United weren't streets ahead of the competition when he took over & the got them to the point of their first title win in 26 years ffs. United's financial strength was largely created by him off the back of the on field success that he brought to them, to imply that he was merely the recipient of some sort of financial good fortune is widely inaccurate. He built the club to what it is today.
Which totally ignores the salient point - the fact that he had the luxury of that 26 year tenure & the stability & continuity that brought with it, was down to his ability & his on field achievements. However, you can't talk about an uneven playing field when it comes to the finances available, as it's simply not true in Fergusons case.
This is a v. good point, I was going to bring it up too. There was a sharp decline right at the end of the '80s and in the early '90s amongst other teams who were previously regularly at the top of the league or won it. This coincided with the long term stability being implemented at Utd. Look at your team Tobes, winners in '86-'87 and you haven't been back in the top three since, same thing happened with the likes of Forest, Leeds, Blackburn, Palace, Wednesday. If you look at the stats it really does bring into sharp focus how much of a closed shop the title competition has become, especially since the start of the PL era. This season it is more open and it would be great to see this continue. Some of this has been down to long term managerial appointments, but a lot of it is obviously about the financial resources of each club.
Sorry, but part of that bit is bollox. Sure, he helped build the financial platform with a successful team but as you've already pointed out, he wasn't part of rebuilding OT or selling the brand. He spent massive amounts on several players such as Pallister, Ince and Kanchelskis (sp). Without looking, I can't recall them all considering I was only five when Fergie got the job
'bollocks'? I think not.... So they'd be the mega brand that they are today, playing in a 75K stadium with a worldwide fanbase of millions, & the largest turnover in the PL, if it hadn't taken a side that hadn't won the title in a generation & turned them into a club that won all before them & lifted 13 titles in 20 years????? Behave yourself. Of course he didn't do it on his own, Edwards did a fine job as Chair, but without his work on the pitch, United isn't what it is today - as that's how a sustainable football club is built. There was no sugar daddy cash at United, the fact that they ended up with larger budgets than most, was solely down to their success in lifting pots, year after year after year......
