You're wasting your time on here, some of these lot seem more interested in our commercial revenue growth than our league positions the last 4 years.
We replaced Ronaldo with Valencia, might not be the same level of talent but he's done alright in his time here. The fact Owen came in as a free agent on a pay as you play contract should prove that Owen was never Ronaldo's replacement.
How are the Glazer's or the fans not interested in our league position? In what way have the owners held United back from finishing at the top? Appointing Moyes was probably an agenda driven by Fergie, but they realized the mistake and paid to get rid of him. They have backed all 3 managers in the transfer market since Fergie (even the dithering Moyes).
You really are beyond stupid. Your posts read like the meanderings of a 6 year old.
Not another one!!
It's somehow the glazers fault that ferguson rated players such as Jones, Smalling and Cleverley.
His point, or rather their point, is that replacing Ronaldo with an inferior player, in this case Valencia, was essentially forced upon Fergie due to the Glazer's pocketing a substantial portion of the 80 million transfer fee. A claim which has been refuted on numerous occasions by Fergie himself. Personally I trust Fergie on this matter, the man is socialist in the truest sense of the word, a man of the people. If Fergie's word isn't enough for you, how about Moyes, LVG and current manager Jose, all of whom have stated clearly that whenever they have asked for cash to fund a transfer, the Glazers have stepped up. Every single time.
I understand what you're trying to say, but people are forgetting that we reached anoher champions league final after Ronaldo and Tevez left, and won a couple of league titles after that as well. Fergie signed some good young players to freshen up the squad and left a decent squad when he left, but the managers following him either could not get the best out of those players, or simply refused to work with some of those players.
Easy to laugh.
I'm sure Fergie did exactly what the Glazers told him, I forgot he was the submissive type and regularly avoided confrontation!
He knew he needed RVP as a missing piece in a title challenge and perhaps knew he wouldn't be there much longer if they won the title beforehand. Again - he was spot on.
How do you explain seasons before the Glazers turned up when Ferguson didn't spend?
And he proves it by winning with a squad of overall mediocre players anyway, impressive. No need to waste money and splash the blings on expensive players if you could still win it with a lot cheaper yet still quality players.He did assess the needs of his squad and spent accordingly.
But it isn't based on opinions, this is your opinion based on a number of assumptions. The post your replying to points to actual facts and comments made by real people working in the actual club, not a fan writing on a forum.
There is some truth in this statement. But at least one side of the argument is pro United, as a club, an entity and something more than just a money-making machine. The other side is pro a bunch of goons who have literally just bought the club to make as much money for themselves as possible.
Everyone's opinion is based in assumptions - unless you are Sir Alex or someone inside the club and know exactly what the position was.
He did address it though. It's not like we struggled. Even the stop gap signings like Young and Scholes returning worked and we lost the title by a point and on GD the only years we failed to win the title under SAF.
There's no need for that. I'm rather confident either "side" is a fan who wants nothing but good things for United. That's why we're here in the first place. I personally couldn't care less about getting into the weeds of the financials, as if any of us really knows what goes on behind those walls anyway.
It's clear from this thread that some people judge the health of the club purely on the balance sheet.
Well it would be hard to argue it isn't a good thing to be the most valuable club in the world. Was it not a sense of pride you felt when that list came out last week and showed us above Madrid, Barca, Bayern, etc.? It was for me, for a short time anyway. Bottom line is performance on the pitch in the long run. And I doubt you'll have one without the other for long.
I never said it wasn't a good thing! And no, I didn't feel pride - that's weird, I'm proud of stuff that we achieve on the field...how 'rich' we are means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.
Utter nonesense. You've obviously misunderstood the posts in this thread because no one is saying that.
You contradict yourself here a bit. It either matters (never said it wasn't a good thing) or it doesn't (in the grand scheme of things). And if it's "weird" I felt good about seeing our name on top of that list so be it, I can assure you I'm not alone.
That, again is a matter of opinion. We had further success post Ronaldo, albeit not to the level we had. Do I think Fergie deserves enormous credit for keeping us competitive - yes. Do I think we might have had more success if more money was spent? Potentially. The signing of a real quality player in RVP was the catalyst for further success and had we had a player like that earlier we might have won more.
Why? We signed DDG for the highest PL fee for a keeper. We signed young for around 20m the time 30m got you hazard etc. We bought players for big fees.
Message to Glazers......please improve security in and around OT straightaway. This incident could have ended up as a dreadful catastrophy. No excuse for such lax security.
Ha ha, Okey doke.
No contradiction at all, you seem keen to keep putting words into my mouth. Of course having money matters - we need enough to compete with the top clubs in the world...take that as read. That doesn't mean that I feel pride about us being the richest club, or that it really matters unless we behave like the biggest club in the world in a variety of areas - player acquisition is one for sure, but there are also other areas that people don't seem so keen to acknowledge such as youth development and community engagement. As I mentioned earlier in the thread City are winning the battle for young hearts and minds in the city at the moment and our allure through glamour and history will only last so long if Guardiola builds a phenomenal team and City win a couple of Champions Leagues. But all of this toing and froing really just brings me back to my initial comment on the thread - the Glazers are just a family looking to make money from our beloved club - yes they could have interfered more and been a total fecking nightmare - but that is no reason for people being so far up their arses.
That's a bit spurious, though. He didn't cost an arm and a leg in the grand scheme of things. Nor did any of the “big signings” we made during the Fergie/Glazer era. It was all relatively modest, relatively speaking. We gave our players very generous contracts, be it said, and had a massive wage bill. But that's a bit different, spread out, like – not using your money muscle to secure a grade A target.
Young was nearly out of contract and would have cost a lot more if he hadn't been. I suspect that's at least one of the reasons he was signed.
There's nothing to suggest though that any of those signings were forced on SAF. I'm pretty sure Nani Anderson Vidic Evra were all players fergie wanted. It's not like fergie wanted puyol and we approved Vidic or something like that. In fact we bought Michael carrick for a fee that even spurs fan were laughing at us for paying at the time.
That's just it. We continued to spend on players SAF wanted irrespective of cost. Berbatov is an example. We could have penny pinched but we got him the player he wanted. SAF like wenger didn't spend on players if he felt they didn't command the fee quoted. Only difference is SAF worked out an equally effective alternative.
