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

[Zlatattack]

It was the only thing about his management which I was not fond of (this and Moyes). It was clear there were great players out there which we needed. He didn't have the money to spend and he put a spin on it. Yeah he left us with a title winning side, but it was also an aging one that needed re-building. He under invested in his final years.

 

[Withnail]

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

I always found it strange that we sold Ronaldo to Real and Snjeider left for buttons shortly after.

Did we even try to try sign him?

 

[Abraxas]

I think the premise of the original post in thinking this can be anything other than speculative is a bit strange. Short of asking Ferguson what he meant you are never going to have the truth. Even if this was put to the man himself he may be disinclined to give you his "real" answer if he thought it against his or the club's interest to do so.

It could be a genuinely held opinion. There is a fair amount of logic in this because of the way football finances were continuing to spiral. Ferguson was a savvy enough man to be fully understanding of the business behind the club in a way some managers are not.

It could be that he had been primed by Glazer in the sense they made clear sustained, big money spending would not be sanctioned. So perhaps Ferguson was attempting to set expectations independently of the Glazers prompting him to do so via the press

I find it quite unlikely he was in any way "spoon fed" by the owners. It does not really fit with his character. We know Ferguson is not all sunshine and light, but I do think he is his own man in all things. There is a bit of a difference in being told what to say and carrying it out compared to being told funds are limited whether he likes it or not and making the best out of a bad situation. The alternative of going against the ownership was probably reasoned to be a bad move for himself and the wider club.

If I had to nail my colours to the mast I would say option 2 - he knew funds would be limited and tried to set that expectation among fans and media early. The only reason for this is we did see some strange signings and underinvestment. This is a correlation without necessarily being a convincing argument but there we go.

 

[Balljy]

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

Later on, there was definitely a change in tactic I agree. There were some weird average signings at medium values for a while before he left.

Also, in hindsight they were bargains, but it's well known that Ferguson looked for player character and did a tonne of research before buying. It's easy to say now how well they suited English football but was not beforehand. We could have bid for any of them, but they preferred other clubs as far as we are aware or other clubs bid higher to a value which was too great a risk for Ferguson.

 

[stevoc]

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).

In 09/10 he was what 67 or 68, of course he would have had one eye on retirement. Probably no set plans but he would have known it was coming sooner rather than later. There were reports after Moyes got sacked that he had not spent as much as he could in his last few years.

Moyes, Van Gaal and Mourinho all spent 2-3 times in one season what Ferguson ever spent though. So obviously that money didn't just appear out of a rabbit hole.

Yes money was tighter back then but I think some of Fergusons restraint in the market was self imposed. Especially when it came to wages and agents fees.

 

[Green_Red]

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

But then when he left they sanctioned loads of big deals. It could just have been Fergie.

 

[pierrethesnack]

I think the premise of the original post in thinking this can be anything other than speculative is a bit strange.

I realize this, was just trying to encourage some good answers, which I got an abundance of, so I am happy.

 

[Falcow]

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.

Exactly. The money was there for Hazard, Bale, Kroos....could even have had Robben and Sneijder as part of Ronaldo deal.

For a variety of reasons we chose not to buy them and ended up with Fellaini and Mata......bought by Fergies hand picked successor.