Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season and relied on bang average even below average squad players like wes brown john oshea fletcher even gibson etc and got them to do the job. Whilst clubs like ours spent, whilst not as much but still a fecking lot on whole squad rebuilds season after season .
Depressing really we're still doing it, spunking money on players when our own youth players could do the job and certainly couldnt do any worse then most of them.
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season
did he
really dont know where you made that up from, but nice one
My question is do people think the Chelsea's and Man City's spending mean that the likes of everton, spurs, villa etc will ever have a chance to win the league.
--
Considering none of them teams have won the league for 25+ years and more, its maybe got a bit more to do with City/Chelsea spending
, villa
they are lucky to be a pl club at this stage, never mind anything else. awful side tbh,.
comment by Dink Dunk, Donk, Denk and Dank and also now regrettably DOINK!!!! (U11713)
posted 37 minutes ago
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season
did he
really dont know where you made that up from, but nice one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he didnt buy 30m rooney, veron, rio etc season after season? You in denial or something?
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dink Dunk, Donk, Denk and Dank and also now regrettably DOINK!!!! (U11713)
posted 37 minutes ago
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season
did he
really dont know where you made that up from, but nice one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he didnt buy 30m rooney, veron, rio etc season after season? You in denial or something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, he didn't Glad we sorted that out. You see, what you've done there is list all of the players (except Berbatov) that Fergie spent £30m on.
What he did do, was buy a hell of a lot of players for £10-20m
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 1 minute ago
What he did do, was buy a hell of a lot of players for £10-20m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That before 30 was the new 20 prob
So he didnt buy 30m rooney, veron, rio etc season after season?
That was 3 times .
hardly season after season.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 1 minute ago
What he did do, was buy a hell of a lot of players for £10-20m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That before 30 was the new 20 prob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it wasn't
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/sir-alex-fergusons-99-signings-4002742
Enjoy
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Dink Dunk, Donk, Denk and Dank and also now regrettably DOINK!!!! (U11713)
posted 37 minutes ago
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season
did he
really dont know where you made that up from, but nice one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he didnt buy 30m rooney, veron, rio etc season after season? You in denial or something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
only berbatov cost over 30 million .... so nope, not in denial, just dealing in hard facts
Dunk, I give people the benefit of the doubt on Rooney, Rio, etc as most likely, with add ons they were £30m+.
I think anyone saying we constantly spent £30m on players missed the 8 seasons where we didn't buy a CM
Great managers can make teams greater than the sum of their parts.
Fergie did this at times.
He also spent big money at times that you expect titles from.
He also got a little bit lucky with the 'class of 92' that only happens once in a blue moon. He managed them well, but to get 3 or 4 top class players coming through at the same time is good fortune.
He also drank a lot of whisky.
You know what? If I won as much as him and was as rich as him, then I'd probably drink lots of whiskey too. Probably expensive whiskey at that.
Fergie blames his alcohol problems on all the celebrating he did with his teams
Fergie spent a fair old amount but it was comparatively less than city and Chelsea. The key to his success was stability, he was able to nurture talent amongst big signings, something that doesn't happen much at Chelsea or City these days.
Unfortunately it's impossible to be successful on a shoestring these days as the moment any player starts to show a bit of promise the richer clubs swoop in to stick them on their bench.
For the last 20 years the best you can hope for is the odd domestic cup and breaking into the top 4.
The new TV deal does mean that a level of parity is starting to be introduced as all clubs are now relatively rich. But it'll still take some doing for a club to topple the current top 4
It was less as he only had to add a couple of players every season. Chelsea and City had to buy whole new teams and didn't get the luck of having four or five first team players come through at the same time, to build from.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
It was less as he only had to add a couple of players every season. Chelsea and City had to buy whole new teams and didn't get the luck of having four or five first team players come through at the same time, to build from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but by the same token, he has to have some credit for persevering with them when it all looked a little crappy - the famous rumours about him possibly being sacked, etc. Not only that, but after that initial 10 years or so, he then had to revamp the squad (admittedly a little at a time).
He didn't spend that much,really, even once the 'Class of 92' had retired.
I'm not trying to take anything away from him at all, just explaining why Chelsea and City had to spend more.
Nothing better than luck to nurture a group of good young players through, keep them motivated as they show how much better than the opposition.
But the when replacing them equal or improve on them
Fergie spent a fair old amount but it was comparatively less than city and Chelsea. The key to his success was stability, he was able to nurture talent amongst big signings, something that doesn't happen much at Chelsea or City these days.
Unfortunately it's impossible to be successful on a shoestring these days as the moment any player starts to show a bit of promise the richer clubs swoop in to stick them on their bench.
For the last 20 years the best you can hope for is the odd domestic cup and breaking into the top 4.
The new TV deal does mean that a level of parity is starting to be introduced as all clubs are now relatively rich. But it'll still take some doing for a club to topple the current top 4
------------------------
This post paints a nostalgic picture at best. It is far from the truth in regards to what actually happened however.
lots of navelgazing and selective memory in that article
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 hours, 37 minutes ago
He also drank a lot of whisky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't. Dalglish did.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
PL spending
Page 1 of 1
posted on 7/9/15
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season and relied on bang average even below average squad players like wes brown john oshea fletcher even gibson etc and got them to do the job. Whilst clubs like ours spent, whilst not as much but still a fecking lot on whole squad rebuilds season after season .
Depressing really we're still doing it, spunking money on players when our own youth players could do the job and certainly couldnt do any worse then most of them.
posted on 7/9/15
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season
did he
really dont know where you made that up from, but nice one
posted on 7/9/15
My question is do people think the Chelsea's and Man City's spending mean that the likes of everton, spurs, villa etc will ever have a chance to win the league.
--
Considering none of them teams have won the league for 25+ years and more, its maybe got a bit more to do with City/Chelsea spending
posted on 7/9/15
, villa
they are lucky to be a pl club at this stage, never mind anything else. awful side tbh,.
posted on 7/9/15
comment by Dink Dunk, Donk, Denk and Dank and also now regrettably DOINK!!!! (U11713)
posted 37 minutes ago
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season
did he
really dont know where you made that up from, but nice one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he didnt buy 30m rooney, veron, rio etc season after season? You in denial or something?
posted on 7/9/15
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dink Dunk, Donk, Denk and Dank and also now regrettably DOINK!!!! (U11713)
posted 37 minutes ago
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season
did he
really dont know where you made that up from, but nice one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he didnt buy 30m rooney, veron, rio etc season after season? You in denial or something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, he didn't Glad we sorted that out. You see, what you've done there is list all of the players (except Berbatov) that Fergie spent £30m on.
posted on 7/9/15
What he did do, was buy a hell of a lot of players for £10-20m
posted on 7/9/15
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 1 minute ago
What he did do, was buy a hell of a lot of players for £10-20m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That before 30 was the new 20 prob
posted on 7/9/15
So he didnt buy 30m rooney, veron, rio etc season after season?
That was 3 times .
hardly season after season.
posted on 7/9/15
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 1 minute ago
What he did do, was buy a hell of a lot of players for £10-20m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That before 30 was the new 20 prob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it wasn't
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/sir-alex-fergusons-99-signings-4002742
Enjoy
posted on 7/9/15
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Dink Dunk, Donk, Denk and Dank and also now regrettably DOINK!!!! (U11713)
posted 37 minutes ago
Fergie was smart he bought 1/2 30million pound players each season
did he
really dont know where you made that up from, but nice one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he didnt buy 30m rooney, veron, rio etc season after season? You in denial or something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
only berbatov cost over 30 million .... so nope, not in denial, just dealing in hard facts
posted on 7/9/15
Dunk, I give people the benefit of the doubt on Rooney, Rio, etc as most likely, with add ons they were £30m+.
I think anyone saying we constantly spent £30m on players missed the 8 seasons where we didn't buy a CM
posted on 7/9/15
Great managers can make teams greater than the sum of their parts.
Fergie did this at times.
He also spent big money at times that you expect titles from.
He also got a little bit lucky with the 'class of 92' that only happens once in a blue moon. He managed them well, but to get 3 or 4 top class players coming through at the same time is good fortune.
posted on 7/9/15
He also drank a lot of whisky.
posted on 7/9/15
You know what? If I won as much as him and was as rich as him, then I'd probably drink lots of whiskey too. Probably expensive whiskey at that.
posted on 7/9/15
Fergie blames his alcohol problems on all the celebrating he did with his teams
posted on 7/9/15
Fergie spent a fair old amount but it was comparatively less than city and Chelsea. The key to his success was stability, he was able to nurture talent amongst big signings, something that doesn't happen much at Chelsea or City these days.
Unfortunately it's impossible to be successful on a shoestring these days as the moment any player starts to show a bit of promise the richer clubs swoop in to stick them on their bench.
For the last 20 years the best you can hope for is the odd domestic cup and breaking into the top 4.
The new TV deal does mean that a level of parity is starting to be introduced as all clubs are now relatively rich. But it'll still take some doing for a club to topple the current top 4
posted on 7/9/15
It was less as he only had to add a couple of players every season. Chelsea and City had to buy whole new teams and didn't get the luck of having four or five first team players come through at the same time, to build from.
posted on 7/9/15
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
It was less as he only had to add a couple of players every season. Chelsea and City had to buy whole new teams and didn't get the luck of having four or five first team players come through at the same time, to build from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but by the same token, he has to have some credit for persevering with them when it all looked a little crappy - the famous rumours about him possibly being sacked, etc. Not only that, but after that initial 10 years or so, he then had to revamp the squad (admittedly a little at a time).
He didn't spend that much,really, even once the 'Class of 92' had retired.
posted on 7/9/15
I'm not trying to take anything away from him at all, just explaining why Chelsea and City had to spend more.
posted on 7/9/15
Nothing better than luck to nurture a group of good young players through, keep them motivated as they show how much better than the opposition.
But the when replacing them equal or improve on them
posted on 7/9/15
Fergie spent a fair old amount but it was comparatively less than city and Chelsea. The key to his success was stability, he was able to nurture talent amongst big signings, something that doesn't happen much at Chelsea or City these days.
Unfortunately it's impossible to be successful on a shoestring these days as the moment any player starts to show a bit of promise the richer clubs swoop in to stick them on their bench.
For the last 20 years the best you can hope for is the odd domestic cup and breaking into the top 4.
The new TV deal does mean that a level of parity is starting to be introduced as all clubs are now relatively rich. But it'll still take some doing for a club to topple the current top 4
------------------------
This post paints a nostalgic picture at best. It is far from the truth in regards to what actually happened however.
posted on 7/9/15
lots of navelgazing and selective memory in that article
posted on 7/9/15
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 hours, 37 minutes ago
He also drank a lot of whisky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't. Dalglish did.
Page 1 of 1