Yes. That is the argument. And that argument is flawed – in a way. No doubt about that, as he would say himself.
But you can't look at this without taking Fergie himself into consideration. He didn't like the old plc. He liked Uncle Malc better – for several reasons. But – and this is the point – there's no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that Fergie liked Uncle Malc because he, Uncle Malc, gave him license to spend whatever he, Fergie, wanted on players he deemed necessary.
It's complicated. Because Fergie himself was who he was. He grew more reluctant over the years when it came to spending big. He resented the influence of agents. He was in tune with many critics of the modern game – too much money involved, exorbitant amounts spent on supposed “stars”, all of that.
I think Fergie to some degree (a great degree, even) relished the takeover – because it meant that the old board (several members of which he clearly didn't love) was no longer a factor he needed to deal with. The Americans were happy to leave him alone.
But that doesn't mean the new owners actually had the cash – or the inclination to spend – to finance a certain kind of transfer. I don't think they did. Fergie either didn't consider that kind of transfer necessary – or he was happy to wait awhile, until the financial situation was more stable. Doesn't really matter which – but the point is that this idea that the takeover didn't affect our ability to spend in any way (it was all Fergie, the “no value” man) is a bit on the naïve side, if you ask me.
I've asked this question before: What if Ronaldo and Rooney (big outlays, Rooney in particular * – that was essentially a bidding war we won) hadn't paid off? What if the cheap (relatively speaking) gambles on Vidic and Evra hadn't paid off? Carrick? A substantial amount and a typical Fergie player – but hardly what some make it out to be. Carrick wasn't a Keane replacement in terms of impact and ability. With all due respect to Carrick he was never near that level. Nor was he a “big signing” of the sort we're talking about here.
People keep piling up signings that really weren't all that “big” in these debates. We all know what a truly huge signing is. We've made those recently, but we didn't in the Glazer/Fergie era. Was that simply because Fergie didn't want to? Or was it because he knew he couldn't? **
* Would Malc have sanctioned that piece of business, out of interest? Record amount for a player his age. Or would Fergie have settled for something else/less? Hard to say, ain't it?
** Again, the theory is that our financial situation hampered our movement(s) in the market up till a certain point.
Last edited: