Was 'No value in the market' Fergie himself speaking?

[pierrethesnack]

I've always assumed so, after discussion with Gill and a good understanding of how far they could push the Glazers.

But all this fuzz with the Glazers got me thinking whether that is the consensus, or just an informed view on my part.

Would preferrably avoid speculative answers, if possible.

 

[Mindhunter]

I've always assumed so, after discussion with Gill and a good understanding of how far they could push the Glazers.

But all this fuzz with the Glazers got me thinking whether that is the consensus, or just an informed view on my part.

Would preferrably avoid speculative answers, if possible.

Not sure whether you are asking if "no value in the market" was a genuine Fergie opinion or something the Glazer's were spoon-feeding him.

It's definitely got to do with our reduced spending capacity post the LBO as SAF never shied away from breaking the British transfer record when United had the wherewithal. In my opinion, this was coming straight from SAF as was an euphemism for "We are broke and I can't buy the players we need with the money the owners have made available".

 

[pierrethesnack]

Not sure whether you are asking if "no value in the market" was a genuine Fergie opinion or something the Glazer's were spoon-feeding him.

It's definitely got to do with our reduced spending capacity post the LBO as SAF never shied away from breaking the British transfer record when United had the wherewithal. In my opinion, this was coming straight from SAF as was an euphemism for "We are broke and I can't buy the players we need with the money the owners have made available".

Yeah, that's what I was wondering, thanks.

 

[stevoc]

I think it was because Ferguson was mindful of the debt the club was in and I personally think as far back as 2009 he had one eye on retirement so didn't want to spend too much so there was a bigger kitty for his predecessor. Which makes sense if you think about the World record bid for Bale in 2013.

 

[JoeyJoJoJrShabadoo]

Fergie also thought 30m was the pinnacle of transfers. He got out at the right time!

 

[Tarrou]

It was Fergie making the most of what he had available to him

He knew his budget was limited, it certainly was not his choice to do that

Whenever he had the chance to spend big he took it before the Glazers showed up

 

[Green_Red]

I always thought it was Fergie saying there were no players out there that would improve his squads that weren't massively overpriced. It was a phrase that started to be used after he had brought players like Ronaldo and Rooney in. I know Rooney was big money, but he offered value too in hindsight.

 

[Greck]

I think Fergie genuinely believed it. He really didn't like where football was going and didn't seem to want to adapt. We pulled out of the Hazard deal over a couple millions because we didn't want to grease the agent's palms but we would spend sums on value projects like Bebe and Obertan

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Not sure whether you are asking if "no value in the market" was a genuine Fergie opinion or something the Glazer's were spoon-feeding him.

It's definitely got to do with our reduced spending capacity post the LBO as SAF never shied away from breaking the British transfer record when United had the wherewithal. In my opinion, this was coming straight from SAF as was an euphemism for "We are broke and I can't buy the players we need with the money the owners have made available".

Pretty much this. There was quality available for fair price, but it was more than we could afford given the circumstances.

SAF didn't need much quality to win the league, and he did just enough, but the Glazers cost us a couple of domestic titles and a couple of CLs I reckon..

Personally I also believe that the lack of spending and lack of ambition manifested by the Glazers (lack of) investment during SAF's final years played a part in his decision to walk away. As long as he was at the helm, winning here and there and keeping the club relevant they were not going to invest much in the squad.

 

[pierrethesnack]

Cheers all.

 

[Sky1981]

I think with ferguson it's about principle.

Doesnt matter if ronaldo cost 10m if the outlay is 5m to agent he'll tell them to feck off out of principle.

Apart from buying obertan bebe and m.owen the rest of his purchase are typical Fergie and doesnt seem out of norm.

Besides i respect fergie. I dont think he'll take "there's no money for transfer this year" likely. It's probably is because he doesnt fancy anyone that much at that time.

We're hardly skint during SAF Glazers era. Big purchases are still happening.

 

[Bondi77]

It was around that time when apparently we put in a couple of big bids for Lucas Moura so I think there was cash there if he needed it.
We were just blessed that we had a manager who could make average players good and be successful.

 

[Ferguson’s Hairdryer]

I've always assumed so, after discussion with Gill and a good understanding of how far they could push the Glazers.

But all this fuzz with the Glazers got me thinking whether that is the consensus, or just an informed view on my part.

Would preferrably avoid speculative answers, if possible.

I can’t remember where I read it. But the Glazers leveraged takeover was a huge drain and in the early years our revenue vs repayments/interest players wages etc didn’t leave much room... some they it was only luck we rode through the first 5-7 years without going into administration. M

TLDR we were broke due to debt.

 

[Borys]

I think it was because Ferguson was mindful of the debt the club was in and I personally think as far back as 2009 he had one eye on retirement so didn't want to spend too much so there was a bigger kitty for his predecessor. Which makes sense if you think about the World record bid for Bale in 2013.

I don't think so. We made little investments after Ronaldo sale and the team Fergie left was the weakest in years. Also, there was no guarantee his precedessor would be granted bigger money.

I believe he was just told what is his budget so he played along (setting low expectations).

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

We always had a lot of cash sitting pretty in the bank during the height of the Green & Gold movement all the way to Fergie’s retirement.

He also made a point in his autobiography that his net spend at Utd was sth like 5m/season. It was quite evident that he prides himself in finding value in the market, spending prudently and not being taken for mugs, as is evident with the Hazard agent episode and his public feud with Raiola (loved Mendes though, go figure)

There’s really nothing empirically to suggest that Fergie was constrained financially by the Glazers, he spoke out multiple time during the PLC and had nothing but compliments when it came to these owners. The £900m we’ve spunked since his retirement also hardly screams penny pinching.

They are bad owners for a multitude of reasons, but this isn’t and has never been the hill to die on when scrutinizing them.

 

[Pronewbie]

The Glazers have taken more than a billion out of the club since the takeover. That said, it is now evident that the funds were always there to be spent - which is a sign of how undervalued the club was. Fergie the genius probably prioritised culture and team cohesion.

With the intense competition these days though, it's highly likely that he would be spending more. I recall the 1st big jump in transfer fees we had the year we signed RVN and Veron, and when Chelsea became Chelski.

 

[Pughnichi]

I reckon he was told of smaller transfer budgets in the first few years of Glazers when repayments were massive. He probably would have loved nothing more than to keep smashing British transfer records. But instead, no value, was his polite way of managing expectations.

 

[londonredmaniac]

I don't think so. We made little investments after Ronaldo sale and the team Fergie left was the weakest in years. Also, there was no guarantee his precedessor would be granted bigger money.

I believe he was just told what is his budget so he played along (setting low expectations).

Aye I agree. I don't buy that Fergie much gave a feck about the next manager tbh.

 

[Lentwood]

I highly doubt it. This is the one thing that has soured SAFs legacy for me.

I have absolutely no love whatsoever for the Glazers but it’s impossible to argue that they have been “bad” owners (in terms of spending) since about 2011. Our net spend on transfers has been consistently top 3 in the World during that period.

However, it’s also impossible (in my opinion) to argue that the positive net spend between the Glazers taking over in 2005 and the refinancing of the PIK loans in 2010 wasn’t down to cost-cutting to ensure repayments could be met. It’s just to much of a massive coincidence and there’s no other logical explanation.

What I have never understood is why SAF pandered to it. Not only did we constantly get the “no value in the market” drivel (from a man who had broken various transfer records over the years) but we also got comments like “if you don’t like it, go and support Chelsea”. I’m not a fan of throwing money around at “names” but you would have thought the club would have been in for the best young players in the game at that time, as we had always been historically under SAF. The confusing part, and the bit that hurts, is that SAF had the power, the control and the kudos to stand-up against the Glazers. I’m not asking him to go full Jose and start spouting off in the press but just tell the truth, or at least don’t lie to cover their tracks. Saying nothing would have been far more preferable than SAF trying to tell us it was raining whilst the Glazers pissed in our pockets!

 

[DanClancy]

The greatest manager of all time is a very greedy man, United fan's don't like admitting but its unfortunately true; Happy to defend the indefensible in the Glazers.

 

[ROFLUTION]

I think he said it to avoid United getting an extra "United-tax" on players.

After he retired and Woodward have just paid whatever a certain club wants, our negotiations has gone straight to hell, as clubs can/could see we'd just give in and pay up (it might have changed a bit now after Sancho)

City understands this too, and only pays a limit of 50m for certain players. It strengthens them in future negotiations that they show they are ready to walk like with Maguire for instance.

 

[ROFLUTION]

The greatest manager of all time is a very greedy man, United fan's don't like admitting but its unfortunately true; Happy to defend the indefensible in the Glazers.

Don't think you can call Fergie greedy - he is a pragmatist though. Give us some examples, if you want to label him as greedy, please. For me greed is an unnecessary action where you thrive for an excessive life, and I more see Fergie being pragmatical about the cards he was dealt with. There is the horse-spectacle, but wasn't that more about principles than greed?

 

[DanClancy]

Don't think you can call Fergie greedy - he is a pragmatist though. Give us some examples, if you want to label him as greedy, please.There is the horse-spectacle, but wasn't that more about principles than greed?

Just did

 

[ROFLUTION]

Just did

Thought I was having a conversation, but turns out I'm talking to a caveman who's not able to elaborate on his views when asked.

I can call Mickey Mouse God himself too you know. Can I back it up though?

 

[Tincanalley]

It was a sad episode. The short answer is; no. The long answer starts with Rock of Gibraltar.

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

It was always a half-truth, whilst there were many players that could have improved us at the time (especially in midfield); such as Sneijder, Modric, Silva and Ribery but considering the financial issues we had to be pickier with our transfers for a period. There was no value for our financial constraints. Mind you, there were some very good signings during that period such as Javier Hernandez and Antonio Valencia.

 

[The Original]

Don't think you can call Fergie greedy - he is a pragmatist though. Give us some examples, if you want to label him as greedy, please. For me greed is an unnecessary action where you thrive for an excessive life, and I more see Fergie being pragmatical about the cards he was dealt with. There is the horse-spectacle, but wasn't that more about principles than greed?

Don't know about greedy but the Rock if Gibraltar affair certainly revealed a more cynical side to him.

 

[DanClancy]

The issue with his son as an agent
Ensuring he was always the highest earner
Continuing to back the Glazers despite retiring

 

[devilish]

I think its down to two things ie the huge debt on ridiculously high interest + SAF reluctance in letting his old guard leave. Most of the latter were on huge salaries (and rightly so). It was either a matter of us pushing them to their retirement or else keeping them and not buy anyone else.

 

[Born2Lose]

I always thought he was not spending towards the end in order to build a reserve for the next manager.

In essence it was a good idea but the way the money was spent was the problem.

 

[norm87cro]

There was value and Fergie didn't want to spend. We were desperate for a MF and an AMF between 2010 and 2013 but instead Fergie put his trust in the likes of Cleverley, Gibson, Carrick and the ageing Scholes and Giggs. Sneijder, Kross and Modrić were not impossible targets. With all that being said he still managed the team brilliantly

 

[Chabon]

There was value and Fergie didn't want to spend. We were desperate for a MF and an AMF between 2010 and 2013 but instead Fergie put his trust in the likes of Cleverley, Gibson, Carrick and the ageing Scholes and Giggs. Sneijder, Kross and Modrić were not impossible targets. With all that being said he still managed the team brilliantly

Our first choice Central Midfield up to 2011 was Carrick-Fletcher, and they were great. We also almost always played Rooney or Giggs as a number ten ahead of them, so an AM would have been irrelevant. We only started to have problems when Fletcher got ill.

We obviously should have signed a midfielder in the summer of 2012, but Fergie decided to go for Van Persie instead. Prior to that it’s hard to see what the point would have been.

 

[Balljy]

Ferguson broke multiple transfer records, but "no value" doesn't equate to that at all. Breaking the record for Rooney still represented value in his eyes, but he would obviously only do it if he saw something in those players that would make them great.

There would be no value if you were buying lesser quality for excess fees and I think that's what he tried to stop where possible. We've seen the effects of doing the opposite in the last few years where we've thrown huge amounts of money at players with inflated prices and ended up with a bloated squad full of players who we probably wanted to move on after 18 months.

Ferguson happily paid what's necessary at the time for the likes of Van Persie, Rooney, Keane but when clubs were asking for similar fees for lesser players that would be "no value".

 

[matsdf]

We tried to get Benzema, but ended up with Michael Owen and Mame Diouf in the summer of 2009. To me that points towards money being available if the right player was available. And if they weren't, SAF wouldn't spend just to spend.

 

[Robertd0803]

I think a lot of it was him not wanting to go down the route of mega money deals for agents and starting that trend. We missed out on Hazard because we wouldnt pay his agent 6 million in fees or something like that and Sir Alex knew if you do that once it will always be expected of you by every other agent in the business.

Case in point, look how difficult our transfers were for the last few years pre Ole when we were held to ransom by some clubs or quoted vastly higher fees because of Woodwards stupid comments.

That being said, Sir Alex is a smart man and he knew his hands were going to be tied somewhat thanks to the owners but he was playing the game really. He wasnt going to start a war with them in public.

 

[kerryman]

The "no value in the market" phrase was used when Aguero was available and moved to City. Was hoping United would buy him. He turned out to be incredible value. I'm sure we'd have won a few more titles had we picked him up.

 

[Jeppers7]

Absolutely SAF was covering for the Glazers, who only decided to start spending once the great man left and we were no longer guaranteed top four, and once the debt was refinanced.

We still follow this model of spending to get into top four.

 

[Shark]

There would be no value if you were buying lesser quality for excess fees and I think that's what he tried to stop where possible. We've seen the effects of doing the opposite in the last few years where we've thrown huge amounts of money at players with inflated prices and ended up with a bloated squad full of players who we probably wanted to move on after 18 months.

Ferguson happily paid what's necessary at the time for the likes of Van Persie, Rooney, Keane but when clubs were asking for similar fees for lesser players that would be "no value".

During this time City had signed Aguero, Silva and Toure for what you can only call bargains.

 

[Withnail]

I always thought it was Fergie saying there were no players out there that would improve his squads that weren't massively overpriced. It was a phrase that started to be used after he had brought players like Ronaldo and Rooney in. I know Rooney was big money, but he offered value too in hindsight.

Well yes but I always thought they were 'over-priced' because they were outside of the budget approved by the Glazers.

 

[Sandikan]

We'd bone constant 6-10m amounts on athletes who were nowhere near good enough footballers, instead of putting 25-30m into a couple of quality players.
Was a strange time.