Even on Sunday Supplement, this week the word is "Manchester United have a template and it's based on stability. Unlike other clubs, they don't panic and sack their Manager" etc etc.
What the experts and journos are neglecting to mention when praising United for this reputation, is when it's assumed Sir Alex was in danger of getting the push, the football world was completely different back then.
There was not nearly as much money in the game back then, the FA Cup was more important than finishing 4th place and Manchester United had not won the league for more than 20 years at that point. There wasn't this great tradition of league success to maintain.
Plus Martin Edwards, whilst stating that they weren't thinking of sacking Fergie if he lost the Cup Final, did admit because their league form did not really pick up the following season, the pressure without the Cup Winners Cup run, would probably have been to great to ignore.
So whichever way we look at it, that FA Cup Win probably did save Fergie.
For me this great tradition of theirs is about to be serverely tested. Fair play to them if they stand by their man.
I laugh when i keep hearing.......
posted on 4/3/14
comment by The RDBD (demoted to supporting the team managed by Pep Guardiola) (U1062)
posted 5 minutes ago
"That doesn't matter. FFP (and those clubs own strategy) has slowed down their spending."
It does matter.
Because their net spend over the past 6 years has been quite consistent, and well within the confines of their annual revenues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times has the phrase "net spend" been used on the spurs board this season?
posted on 4/3/14
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
Im not saying he hasn't wasted money. Carrick and Fellanni are too slow when coupled with an ageing squad. Add RVP who slows the tempp way down. all in all it really is a bad mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Man Utd manager should have spent that £30 million better then. He could have bought a world class central midfielder for that money so no excuses.
When it comes to money spent I'm fairly certain that Utd's net spend has been much higher than Chelsea's this season.
Factor in the fact that Utd have also just given Rooney a £300,000 per week contract and I find it hard to see how they can be considered have nots.
posted on 4/3/14
"Because their net spend over the past 6 years has been quite consistent, and well within the confines of their annual revenues."
And due to FFP coming in, it is at an equivalent level to Citys and Chelseas. Hence, as I said, right at this point in time, United can compete financially with City and Chelsea. They could, if they wanted, now actually spend far more than City or Chelsea, and that may well be seen in the summer.
Their net spend has been anything but consistent over the past six years, particularly if you consider the last three compared to the three before by the way (155 million in the last three against minus 15 in the previous three).
posted on 4/3/14
"How many times has the phrase "net spend" been used on the spurs board this season?"
A lot.
As it explains how 100m odd of transfer costs can be made in one summer when the clubs annual revenues are only 50m greater.
posted on 4/3/14
"Their net spend has been anything but consistent over the past six years, particularly if you consider the last three compared to the three before by the way (155 million in the last three against minus 15 in the previous three)."
Their gross spends over the past 7 seasons have been in the 21-68m band. Their net spends correspondingly from -64 to 64m.
Their average revenues over the same period are probably at least 4 times their gross/net annual transfer spend.
And you would expect their net spend to increase recently, as much of their squad is approaching its end days, and they do not have the replacements from within.
posted on 4/3/14
I'm struggling to see the point you are making RDBD. Whichever way you look at it, United are capable of competing with Chelsea and City financially and the last three years prove that, and that is down to a combination of FFP and the individual clubs strategy.
My last point was purely because you said net spend had been consistent. It hadn't. Either way, it's still not relevant to where we are at this moment in time and Uniteds ability to financially compete.
posted on 4/3/14
The point is that Man Utd are the only club that can spend big on players by virtue of their immense revenues. The only other clubs with similar net spending levels are the Sugga Daddy FCs. And those levels are artificial (not possible via the club operating as a going concern) .
posted on 4/3/14
So they can financially compete then...
I'm not entirely sure why you are responding to my points then if you are saying the same thing.
posted on 4/3/14
It's a load of crap anyway, football is a business. Imagine Vodaphone, O2 and T-Mobile being told how to run their finances by Virgin because they feel they're at a disadvantage.
posted on 4/3/14
dont planting in soil where water stands in winter