The other thing that made Paisley's achievements even greater imo is that Liverpool was his first managerial job - a job he didn't even want. fergie was already a very successful manager when he took over at utd.
Must admit I've only skimmed the last two pages (too many words), but how did it turn into a comparison between Fergie and the Liverpool of his period of tenure? Clearly he wins hands down there. Spurious though it may be, I thought it was a comparison between the achievements of various top managers?
All ifs and buts, i could use the same that if Shankley hadnt left liverpool in such good standing and instead paisley took over sunderland of this year then he would have been the most useless manager ever. However, he did take over and became a legend. Fergie likewise did it even if financially he was better off that 80 odd other clubs in the football league
Errm...in 1989, United had a greater revenue than LFC. Despite LFC's 2 decades of success and Utd's lack of it. At this point, your argument simply melts away.
Paisley's record shouldn't just be based on his time as manager, he was the man who Shanks pulled up to coaching level and allowed him to put his mark on the team from the start. Shanks was the voice, Paisley was the tactics - Shanks vision to see how good the partnership could be was amazing and that is where the magic truly began. Paisley for me, had built from scratch but from within...Without the need to shout "I did this!"
So you mean United revenue went over Liverpools in the year Liverpool last won the league ? Or was ours higher before that during your years of dominance ?
Very true. As assistant manager to Shankly, Paisley had a direct involvement in the signing and development of the players he ended up inheriting in 1974.
My point about finances is he might have had a lot more than other clubs, but i'm guessing it wasnt the most in the old division 1. I'm sure Paisley had more to spend than most when he took over yet we are not belittling his achievements that he was bankrolled and took over a great team (see whoever takes over barcelona after pep or this exisitng bayern team). Fergie rebuilt a team that had not anything in a long time into what it is now. He didn't take over a club that was already run well with a good team like Paisley (that is not to undermine Paisley, he was excellent in his own right) but imagine if he took over liverpool after hodgson and had kennys money to spend (outspending most teams in the league, with what you are saying fergie did). I guess we will all have to disagree who is the better manager. Personally i'm picking Jose as us chelsea fans love him.
The truth is Fergie and the other managers in the OP were suberb in their own way for their respective clubs. The bullshit regarding knighthood's just makes those on the list stand out more when on merit Stein should have got one for his achievement if Busby did the following season, Clough for winning the title at two different clubs and two EC's, and of course Bob for his achievements, but politics decide who gets knighted and Thatcher hated Liverpool so it was never gonna happen. The fact that Brooking got one cements that argument. So well done Shanks,Bob,Stein, Fergie, Busby and Clough.
