Fergie Voted Greatest Manager of all time.

jonny68

Badabing wrote:

Should be Jock Stein, Celtic first british team to win european cup, all players born in glasgow or just outside and celtic won the Quaddruple

absolutely......

PHB

Im also suprised to hear you sound un-impressed with young Reid, after a couple of MOTM's playing for Ireland

I must have been watching different matches

The point is that nobody is producing world class players at the levels we used to get years ago.
We had Liverpool, West Ham, Notts Forest, Leeds, and Man Utd all producing crops of quality players. Thats not the case anymore.
While the talent was stolen, it was nurtered at a level that wasn't going to happen at other clubs.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Your condescending tone only makes you look more foolish. The cheek of you to say that I should check my facts. Your list for 2001 transfers omits one player that I can think off the top of my head. Sorry two players, the second signed in the Summer of 2000.

That leads me to conclude that I wont accept any of your previous figures, until you link sources, or list names. Its blatantly obvious Fergie is a big spender, you are the one who is trying to prove hes not.

Not wishing to open this again but I had missed this post Until JT made me aware of it Via Pm. As he has questioned my figures which are 100% accurate I want to reply to put the matter right.

RVN signed for Utd on the first of july 2001 which was after the cut off point ie the end of the 2001 season that JT requested I bring the figures up to.


Jiving Turkey is again factually incorrect to say Fabien Barthez Signed for Man United in 2001 , Barthez signed for United on the 31st of may 2000 and so was included in my inital calculations.{the ones i did from 94 to 2000 }


My figures are 100% accurated and I stand over my posts on this issue. ie Liverpool spent more money on players than united did between the start of the 96 season and the end of 00 /01 season, United most sucessful period.

I am not denying United have spent Big Money, we all know they have but most of that has been in the last few years and has not resulted in the success we had with the youths in the 90s..

Thanx 4 The Fish

He is showing why he is the best Manager of an English team of all time today as he has done all season. Fair play to him, think he is taking the it's better to fade away than to burn out route.

GuanYin

PHB wrote:

We had Liverpool, West Ham, Notts Forest, Leeds, and Man Utd all producing crops of quality players. Thats not the case anymore.

Please name the recent Man Utd internationals that came from Uniteds youth academy and not the Manchester and greater manchester schoolboy academy?

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

Not wishing to open this again

Well you obviously did, I thought we were through with it but oh well.....

The Muppet wrote:

but I had missed this post Until JT made me aware of it Via Pm. As he has questioned my figures which are 100% accurate I want to reply to put the matter right.

RVN signed for Utd on the first of july 2001 which was after the cut off point ie the end of the 2001 season that JT requested I bring the figures up to.

Ruud signed for United on 23rd April 2001. Its included in the link I posted if you bothered to read it. In your calculations of the net transfer fees you have included players sold in May 2001 so I dont think its unfair to include RVN.

The Muppet wrote:

Jiving Turkey is again factually incorrect to say Fabien Barthez Signed for Man United in 2001 , Barthez signed for United on the 31st of may 2000 and so was included in my inital calculations.{the ones i did from 94 to 2000 }

LOL. Im not going to urge you to read my entire post because you seem to be incapable, so just focus on the but YOU quoted. You will see that I said "the second signed in the Summer of 2000".

You come across as very arrogant, not to mention extremely foolish, to make such a remark without actually reading what I said. And by the way, please spell my name correct.

The Muppet wrote:

My figures are 100% accurated and I stand over my posts on this issue. ie Liverpool spent more money on players than united did between the start of the 96 season and the end of 00 /01 season, United most sucessful period.

Having done more research Ill admit Uniteds net spend is lower than I thought it was over that period. But, Ive said before that all this proves is that Liverpool had poor managers at the time. You seem to think this is a very valid point, but unfortunately this isnt a Liverpool VS Manchester United thread.

The Muppet wrote:

I am not denying United have spent Big Money, we all know they have but most of that has been in the last few years and has not resulted in the success we had with the youths in the 90s..

Yes you were, this post, made by you started all talk over transfers. If you read it (it shouldnt be so hard seeing as its one of your own) you will see you directly quoted an assertion of mine that claimed Fergie is a big spender year on year, which you replied to be "unfounded rubbish" and I was "showing up" my "lack of knowledge on the subject". While you might feel "most" of it has been in the last few years their transfer spend seems fairly consistent with the state of the transfer market (i.e. steadily increasing before booming around the 2000 mark). And in that period they broke the English transfer record twice, broke the English record for a defender, and the English transfer record for a keeper.

To sum up my original point however, I never said that Ferguson "bought success". I said he was a big spender. Which it looks like you have conceeded is true.

While you seem intent to prove that Liverpool spent as much during a short period of Fergusons reign, all that proves is that Liverpools managers were poor in the transfer market. Hence they dont feature to highly in the poll. Liverpool were and are a big spending club.

You focus on the transfers during Uniteds most successful period, but seem to ignore the periods around that. Post 94 United were big spenders also, the likes of Paul Parker, Paul Ince, Gary Pallister and Mark Hughes didnt come cheap. Same goes for post 2000.

What you are trying to argue here is that Ferguson does not have his fair share of financial muscle, a point made by me. If thats what you want to believe, fine. While over a short period of his reign Liverpools spending might have been on a par with Uniteds, over his reign as a whole Ferguson has spent big, and proportionately bigger than what Fergusons rivals for this title did.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Having done more research Ill admit Uniteds net spend is lower than I thought it was over that period. But, Ive said before that all this proves is that Liverpool had poor managers at the time. You seem to think this is a very valid point, but unfortunately this isnt a Liverpool VS Manchester United thread.

I think that says it all really, pity you didn't research first. I have nothing to add.

PHB

Just saw the spending charts(not net) on United since 1992.

Chelsea a clear 1st with an extra 100 million at like 350
Man Utd at 2nd with like 250
Newcaslte and liverpool close behind them with something like 200-250 each
Arsenal obviously the most impressive with 150 mill at 6trh
Spurs at a shocking 7th

The Muppet

PHB wrote:

Just saw the spending charts(not net) on United since 1992.

Chelsea a clear 1st with an extra 100 million at like 350
Man Utd at 2nd with like 250
Newcaslte and liverpool close behind them with something like 200-250 each
Arsenal obviously the most impressive with 150 mill at 6trh
Spurs at a shocking 7th

Year................ IN................ OUT
89/90................ 00 .625 ................ 00
90/91................ 00 ................ 00
91/92 ................ 00 ................ 00
92/93 ................ 3.75 ................ 00
93/94 ................ 1.4 ................ 00
95/96 ................ 1.5 ................ 5.8
96/97................ 1.2 ................ 00
97/98 ................ 28.1 ................ 00
98/99 ................ 0 ................ 00
99/00 ................ 13.3 ................ 00 .05
00/01 ................ 0 ................ 5.25
01/02 ................ 50.1 ................ 18.2
02/03 ................ 37.5 ................ 2
03/04 ................ 52.39 ................ 29.75
04/05 ................ 20 ................ 3.85

ToTals................ 209.865................ 64.9................ Nett of sales = £144.965 Million

They are the United figures I have found on the net. They cover from 89 to present day. There are some sales that were undisclosed eg. Andy Cole went for an undisclosed sum , where that happened There is no value enteres for the sale. I think PHbs figures may be for players purchased only and do not include money recouped from transfers.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

I think that says it all really, pity you didn't research first. I have nothing to add.

A total cop out. I did do research, but on doing further research, I learned that while Uniteds net spent was not as big as I thought, it was still huge. Something that you are still denying. At least Im mature enough to acknowledge that. Something I have never seen you do. But you stay up on your high horse, I hear the view is great up there.

How about you add something to your claim that Im "factually incorrect" about the date signed Fabien Barthez or Ruud Van Nistelrooy? Or have you begun to read my posts?

The Muppet wrote:

Year................ IN................ OUT
89/90................ 00 .625 ................ 00
90/91................ 00 ................ 00
91/92 ................ 00 ................ 00
92/93 ................ 3.75 ................ 00
93/94 ................ 1.4 ................ 00
95/96 ................ 1.5 ................ 5.8
96/97................ 1.2 ................ 00
97/98 ................ 28.1 ................ 00
98/99 ................ 0 ................ 00
99/00 ................ 13.3 ................ 00 .05
00/01 ................ 0 ................ 5.25
01/02 ................ 50.1 ................ 18.2
02/03 ................ 37.5 ................ 2
03/04 ................ 52.39 ................ 29.75
04/05 ................ 20 ................ 3.85

ToTals................ 209.865................ 64.9................ Nett of sales = £144.965 Million

They are the United figures I have found on the net. They cover from 89 to present day. There are some sales that were undisclosed eg. Andy Cole went for an undisclosed sum , where that happened There is no value enteres for the sale. I think PHbs figures may be for players purchased only and do not include money recouped from transfers.

Some of those figures are wrong.

During the 1990-1993 period United signed plenty of players. Eric Cantona? Paul Parker? Peter Schmiechel? Andrei Kanchelskis? What about the purchase (I assume you mean just the sale was undisclosed) of Andy Cole in 1995? Even if the purchase was undisclosed it is widely acknowledged that the deal was worth in and around £7M.

You seem to think this is a thread gauging Liverpools and United spend. Its not. You seem to think by proving that Liverpool spent as much money as United on players over a few years in the nineties that that somehow has any relevance to Ferguson deserving his title as "greatest of all time".

You are still denying that Ferguson is a big spender, yet you seem to think by making glib remarks and sitting there smugly that you have achieved something. Ive said it before and Ill only reinforce it based on the figures Ive seen and even the figures presented by you and others, Ferguson has spent more in proportionate terms than his rivals for this title, which should count against him in assessing how he has done in comparison.

Emmo

This is like one of those horrible Friday the 13th movies. I think you will need to burn the body (lock the thread) before its over.

Just for my 2 cent.

Liverpool and United both spent big in the 90's. Lots and lots and lots of cash.

Liverpool spent big and got little in return.

United and their youth and spending big got some very good returns.

Emmo

p.pete

Emmo wrote:

Liverpool and United both spent big in the 90's. Lots and lots and lots of cash.

Liverpool spent big and got little in return.

I'm confused as to why this comparison is on this thread - is there any Liverpool managers during that period that would be considered great?

Emmo

The comparison is not really mine to make.

It was being used by The Muppet and Jive to make a point. I think Jive highlighted this too so cest la vie.

As for Liverpool managers being great, Souness was great at pissing off the fans!

Emmo

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

I'm confused as to why this comparison is on this thread - is there any Liverpool managers during that period that would be considered great?

The comparisopn is p-pete that the point was made that Fergies success was due to him spending big in the transfer marker. My point was that his early success was built on the youth policy at the club and that Fergie actually spent less in the transfer market than some other clubs in the league at the time. Apart form that you are right it has no relevance to this thread.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

the point was made that Fergies success was due to him spending big in the transfer marker.

No, the point was made that Ferguson was a big spender. His greatest success was due to the extraordinary youth he had as well as some big signings.

The Muppet wrote:

My point was that his early success was built on the youth policy at the club

Which I acknowledged. But a proportion was also down to financial muscle, which is illustrated by three English transfer record signings in the first XI in 1999, not to mention Dwight Yorke, a snip at £12.6M.

The Muppet wrote:

and that Fergie actually spent less in the transfer market than some other clubs in the league at the time.

Ive said before but Ill do so again, I cant fathom why you think that because Liverpools spending was larger than Uniteds over a seven year stretch (a meagre 33% of Fergusons reign) that he isnt also a big spender.

And why not focus on the time after? He has spent around a whopping £100M net, since the post season of 00/01. I guess it just debunks the notion that he isnt a big spender.

And how about clarification on your figures which are "100% correct"? United didnt sign anyone between 1990 and 1993? No Cantona? Paul Parker etc?