Tbh I think almost the opposite, it was the introduction of Chelsea and City with their insane spending that made the top a closed shop. The likes of Tottenham never stood a chance!
All FFP has done is stopped another billionaire turning up and throwing hundreds of millions at a club... Which didn't exactly happen regularly to FFP anyway.
What it has meant though, even without FFP that the only way to compete with the giants is to get a billionaire in. Prior to City and Chelsea you had more of a chance of stretching just the clubs budget to do it.
It's worse in England as well. At least say in Germany you only have the one giant, Dortmund with a relatively low budget just need them to have a bad season..
Tottenham need at least 4 clubs to have bad seasons to stand a semi realistic shot at the title.
Even with Spain you have the 2 absolute mammoths but there's only 2 of them, Leti's budget isn't too far different from some of the others.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 2 minutes ago
SAF but the point is that Wenger is insinuating that he can't afford players like Costa while at the same time paying more for the likes of Ozil and Sanchez.
It's like me saying that I can't afford to shop at Selfridge's after I've just bought a few expensive things in Harrods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends what exactly he means...
If he's stating he couldn't have bought just one individual then that is wrong...
If he's stating he couldn't have afforded to buy them all but just the odd one then he's right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree.
The two most expensive players on the pitch yesterday were Arsenal players. That counts for a lot.
The money is clearly there for Wenger to spend and he's definitely been spending a lot of it.
I actually think that Wenger's words yesterday were an insult to the many other PL teams who could only dream of being able to spend the type of money that Arsenal spend.
I know Chelsea have won a CL since Man City got in it, but since Man City have qualified for it they have finished above Chelsea domestically since..
It was a poor excuse yesterday by Wenger about money. However 2 of Arsenal's better players were Gibbs and Wilshere according to some sections of the press today. I don't believe they would have got as far in their careers under Mourinho. His default position when short in a position is an expensive purchase.
It is a fair point re A. Madrid, but are they going to qualify for the CL for the next 15 years ?
Gunnerbegood -
I quite agree Wilshere and Gibbs could well have not advanced so well at other clubs, but is a manager there to advance individual players or is he there to get the team to win?
Wenger could be the perfect manager for a young player to develop... but is that what Arsenal fans want? Is it in Arsenal's interest to develop players for other teams to get the benefit? For years RVP learnt his trade at Arsenal and then moved to Manchester to get a trophy... same with Cesc... he wouldn't be the player he is today without Arsene and his time at Arsenal - but who is actually benefiting? Chelsea!
Atletico may well not qualify for the CL for the next 15 years but they have won the league - that goes back to how you judge success.
SAF, insane spending ?
Cities spending far out reaches CFC in terms of money spent on players & contracts.
Yes i know we spent 50m on Torres , and io must agree that was insane.
But traditionally Utd led the big spending and at those times spending 30m on defender Rio could have been described as insane when everyone else was buying players for half of that price
Man Utd were the first British club to start the huge spending on players both in terms of transfers and wages.
Ferdinand and Veron cost a combined £60 million and that was 12 or 13 years ago.
Roy Keane was given a £50,000 per week contract at a time when those kind of wages on player were unheard of.
Had it not been for Chelsea and then City coming in and spending big I think that the Premiership would have turned into a one team league and the Premiership wouldn't have become what it is today.
Following on,
in Cities case i do mean in individual cases , not in terms of of overall total, purely because CFC were spending at least 5 years before City, but they are catching up !
Superb, they spent on Ferdinand and Veron after a number of years of success based primarily of players eg Scholes, Beckham, Neville etc. who cost nothing.
Mr M, the really great managers nurture players from an early age and incorporate at least one or two in a side even if the rest are big purchases. Clough with Woodcock and Birtles and Ferguson are examples. Even in his latter years he was playing Cleverley and Welbeck.
Back when United were insanely spending as you put it we were actually had a lower net spend than a few teams around us.
You could argue we were somewhat like Arsenal in comparison to Chelsea yesterday one or two more expensive players but a squad that cost less to construct overall.
I know Liverpool were bigger spenders in wages and transfer fees around the time, I also know Newcastle and Chelsea were bigger spenders from 92-00 (by the time we bought veron it was still probably pretty close)
With all the expensive foreigners Chelsea brought in they were probably pretty similar on the wages as well.
United cannot be said to be like Chelsea and City with their insane spending levels because we were quite close (and in a few cases less) in spending to other clubs...
When Chelsea did it they had no one close to their spending levels, with City the only real comparison was Chelsea...
It's not so much individual deals but the overall am spending that was insane. City did it to even more insane levels I would agree with that.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 2 minutes ago
SAF but the point is that Wenger is insinuating that he can't afford players like Costa while at the same time paying more for the likes of Ozil and Sanchez.
It's like me saying that I can't afford to shop at Selfridge's after I've just bought a few expensive things in Harrods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends what exactly he means...
If he's stating he couldn't have bought just one individual then that is wrong...
If he's stating he couldn't have afforded to buy them all but just the odd one then he's right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree.
The two most expensive players on the pitch yesterday were Arsenal players. That counts for a lot.
The money is clearly there for Wenger to spend and he's definitely been spending a lot of it.
I actually think that Wenger's words yesterday were an insult to the many other PL teams who could only dream of being able to spend the type of money that Arsenal spend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this. How can Wenger complain about money when the 2 biggest signings on the pitch are from Arsenal. I'm just getting tired of Arsenal using money as a excuse for losing. When they use to beat us back in the day, i never once heard us say 'u only beat us cos u have more money'. We took our beating and went on to the next game. These gooners including the manager just can't stop using the money thing as an excuse. Yes money helps u buy better players but you still need a manager to adopt tactics and a playing style that gets the most out of the team.
if it was just about who has the most cash than Real Madrid win the CL every season, Man utd win the premier league every season, and everyone else would be just there to make up the numbers.
But you got to admit that united got "lucky" 3 times, if not for that they would have been spending big. You had the golden age that came through all at the same time that no club has been able to replicate over the last 20years, you have had arguably the best manager ever and you had the sky money. Yes United done very well but you take those 3 things away and well you can see what you have left. A team that needs to spend to keep up, that's the way of things. United got lucky with the golden age and I doubt in our life time we will ever see that type of quality come through, that saved you millions in transfers and also with the likes of Beckham netted you some nice profits. All swings and round about off the field as well as on it.
People always mention sky money as of we had some huge advantage...
We have one of the fairer tv deals in terms of spread out of the top leagues and any extra we would have received for being shown more than say Liverpool (which wouldn't have been too often) wouldn't have added up too much. Regardless the argument is about spending rather than earning. In terms of earning we probably did earn more than the rest, no one criticises earning money though, they criticise the excessive spending of it....
We did fairly well out if our youth but the thing we did that other clubs didn't is make the most of it. Look at the list of players West Ham have produced since '92, it isn't a million miles of what United have produced in the last 22 years.
Chelsea also have had some good youngsters came through, Matic could have stayed a Chelsea player rather than get swooped out for Luiz and bought back expensively...
Whereas say someone like Kieran Richardson or Gibson we got a few years of service out of and sold them on for a fee as well. United really made the most of their youth, as well as having a better return than most from it. I still don't think we would have done the insane spending levels as you can see from SAFs later years even if the youth werent all that great we still used them quite a bit.
Didn't Chelsea have Mourinho for one of their biggest spending periods? I would rate SAF over him but Mourinho is a top manager, if having SAF is a reason we didn't need to spend big (or insane should i say) surely the same could have been said of Chelsea with Mourinho?
Gunnerbegood - are they great managers because they nurtured or because they won things?
I think the great managers know what they need... Ferguson was not shy at throwing money around to get the players he wanted - equally if the players he had were good enough, he recognised that he didn't need to spend. Academy or buying players - it doesn't matter, the manager is there to win football matches.
There are plenty of clubs who nurture young players and help them grow... but when the players feel the need to move on to progress their careers that is not a good sign for where the team stands in the big scheme of things.
SAF - agree re West Ham's youth system... its scary to think how good they could have been if they were able to keep them. Unfortunately West Ham are in a different position to Utd and they needed to sell players.
Mr M, I rate Mourinho, don't get me wrong, but his record with nurturing is not great. He is great with organising teams and handling massive egos, but winning with a team of ready made world class players is relatively speaking not as hard as doing it with a mixture of raw talent and big purchases.
I don't consider Mancini and Pellegrini as greats, but they won titles with City using the same template.
Gunner - I know what you mean, i guess my question is - how important is nurturing really? Your job as a manager is to win - the owners want trophies and the fans want trophies... if you produce a winning team does it really matter if you nurture or not?
There are lots of managers who have nurtured and not won... and there are a few who have managed to nurture and win (Ferguson was incredible). There are plenty who have only spent and still lost... but a manager is judged on his team's success on the pitch.
I think you want nurturing from a long term manager though, they don't need to be as good as SAF was.
I just don't understand why more of the bigger clubs don't fill the gaps in their squad with youngsters, I am not suggesting chucking a youngster straight into the first XI (though with the occasional really talented one you can) I am just thinking of filling in the gaps in the squad with the youngsters.
I think its something SAF did as well as bringing players into the first team, Keiran Richardson probably saved us a packet as backup for various positions and we got a few million out of him when he left, despite the fact he's not a great player by any stretch of the imagination...
Basically without nurturing ability you need a little bit more money.
The one major advantage is you can get a player you could not get without it. Lets say like United with Ronaldo, the only reason we had him is because we bought him when he was raw and teams like Real Madrid didn't want him for their first team, because of that we had the best player in the world for a couple of years.
It he'd gone elsewhere and developed then United would probably have missed out as he would have gone to Real from them...
Thats slightly different side of it, buying youngsters than bringing them through the academy but it still has a nurturing aspect.
Well this is perhaps where the game has changed - besides Wenger who else is a long serving manager? I think the average reign is less than 2 seasons (correct me if I'm wrong) - so in that case can a manager afford to worry about the long-term? He has to get results.
Ferguson was unsackable, and Wenger will not get the push... everyone else is under pressure to get results, and in the big clubs to get trophies - finishing second is unacceptable (Mancini, Ancelotti).
Nurturing is a bonus, and will save/make the club money... but it doesn't necessarily help win matches or trophies and that is ultimately the aim.
Surely a long term manager who can stay for at least say 6-7 seasons (if not more like 15) should be the goal of every club though?
Maybe there is x or y that requires some short term thinking for the moment but in the longer term surely most clubs would like to get a manager in who can stick around for a while and get on with things like long term planning safe in the knowledge he will (probably) reap the rewards for his work.
At least for me it would always be the long term aim, maybe as a United fan having SAF here for so long I have a different view to other people though?
Surely a long term manager who can stay for at least say 6-7 seasons (if not more like 15) should be the goal of every club though?
----------------------------
Ideally yes but unless there is a rule change of some kind clubs will continue to hire and fire managers and Utd will be no exception to that.
Everyone will continue to hire and fire managers but if every clubs goal in the long term is (or should be) to have a manager that sticks around for a while then nurturing is definitely a talent you want in your manager.
I'd like to think United will do it again (maybe not quite 26 years though!) and sooner rather than later. Not saying we are somehow special or unique but I think we have more chance of doing it than Chelsea, who are used to a very different mentality...
Not saying we are somehow special or unique but I think we have more chance of doing it than Chelsea, who are used to a very different mentality...
-----------------------------
What happened with Fergie was a freak of nature and won't be repeated.
Utd hired and fired many managers before Fergie and they'll continue to do the same after.
Normal service is resumed.
Not saying we were going to repeat SAF, just that we have more chance of getting a long term manager in than Chelsea as we seem to believe in that format more than Chelsea do...
That isn't to say LVG, or even the next one or the one after that will. Just that we will probably try for it more than a team like Chelsea will.
Surely a long term manager who can stay for at least say 6-7 seasons (if not more like 15) should be the goal of every club though?
======================
Interesting thought but has never and will never be the case. Clubs have always sacked failure and whilst it may be more prevalent today it is nonetheless how it's always been.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is it really all about money?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 6/10/14
Tbh I think almost the opposite, it was the introduction of Chelsea and City with their insane spending that made the top a closed shop. The likes of Tottenham never stood a chance!
All FFP has done is stopped another billionaire turning up and throwing hundreds of millions at a club... Which didn't exactly happen regularly to FFP anyway.
What it has meant though, even without FFP that the only way to compete with the giants is to get a billionaire in. Prior to City and Chelsea you had more of a chance of stretching just the clubs budget to do it.
It's worse in England as well. At least say in Germany you only have the one giant, Dortmund with a relatively low budget just need them to have a bad season..
Tottenham need at least 4 clubs to have bad seasons to stand a semi realistic shot at the title.
Even with Spain you have the 2 absolute mammoths but there's only 2 of them, Leti's budget isn't too far different from some of the others.
posted on 6/10/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 2 minutes ago
SAF but the point is that Wenger is insinuating that he can't afford players like Costa while at the same time paying more for the likes of Ozil and Sanchez.
It's like me saying that I can't afford to shop at Selfridge's after I've just bought a few expensive things in Harrods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends what exactly he means...
If he's stating he couldn't have bought just one individual then that is wrong...
If he's stating he couldn't have afforded to buy them all but just the odd one then he's right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree.
The two most expensive players on the pitch yesterday were Arsenal players. That counts for a lot.
The money is clearly there for Wenger to spend and he's definitely been spending a lot of it.
I actually think that Wenger's words yesterday were an insult to the many other PL teams who could only dream of being able to spend the type of money that Arsenal spend.
posted on 6/10/14
I know Chelsea have won a CL since Man City got in it, but since Man City have qualified for it they have finished above Chelsea domestically since..
It was a poor excuse yesterday by Wenger about money. However 2 of Arsenal's better players were Gibbs and Wilshere according to some sections of the press today. I don't believe they would have got as far in their careers under Mourinho. His default position when short in a position is an expensive purchase.
It is a fair point re A. Madrid, but are they going to qualify for the CL for the next 15 years ?
posted on 6/10/14
Gunnerbegood -
I quite agree Wilshere and Gibbs could well have not advanced so well at other clubs, but is a manager there to advance individual players or is he there to get the team to win?
Wenger could be the perfect manager for a young player to develop... but is that what Arsenal fans want? Is it in Arsenal's interest to develop players for other teams to get the benefit? For years RVP learnt his trade at Arsenal and then moved to Manchester to get a trophy... same with Cesc... he wouldn't be the player he is today without Arsene and his time at Arsenal - but who is actually benefiting? Chelsea!
Atletico may well not qualify for the CL for the next 15 years but they have won the league - that goes back to how you judge success.
posted on 6/10/14
SAF, insane spending ?
Cities spending far out reaches CFC in terms of money spent on players & contracts.
Yes i know we spent 50m on Torres , and io must agree that was insane.
But traditionally Utd led the big spending and at those times spending 30m on defender Rio could have been described as insane when everyone else was buying players for half of that price
posted on 6/10/14
Man Utd were the first British club to start the huge spending on players both in terms of transfers and wages.
Ferdinand and Veron cost a combined £60 million and that was 12 or 13 years ago.
Roy Keane was given a £50,000 per week contract at a time when those kind of wages on player were unheard of.
Had it not been for Chelsea and then City coming in and spending big I think that the Premiership would have turned into a one team league and the Premiership wouldn't have become what it is today.
posted on 6/10/14
Following on,
in Cities case i do mean in individual cases , not in terms of of overall total, purely because CFC were spending at least 5 years before City, but they are catching up !
posted on 6/10/14
Superb, they spent on Ferdinand and Veron after a number of years of success based primarily of players eg Scholes, Beckham, Neville etc. who cost nothing.
Mr M, the really great managers nurture players from an early age and incorporate at least one or two in a side even if the rest are big purchases. Clough with Woodcock and Birtles and Ferguson are examples. Even in his latter years he was playing Cleverley and Welbeck.
posted on 6/10/14
Good point Superb!
posted on 6/10/14
Back when United were insanely spending as you put it we were actually had a lower net spend than a few teams around us.
You could argue we were somewhat like Arsenal in comparison to Chelsea yesterday one or two more expensive players but a squad that cost less to construct overall.
I know Liverpool were bigger spenders in wages and transfer fees around the time, I also know Newcastle and Chelsea were bigger spenders from 92-00 (by the time we bought veron it was still probably pretty close)
With all the expensive foreigners Chelsea brought in they were probably pretty similar on the wages as well.
United cannot be said to be like Chelsea and City with their insane spending levels because we were quite close (and in a few cases less) in spending to other clubs...
When Chelsea did it they had no one close to their spending levels, with City the only real comparison was Chelsea...
It's not so much individual deals but the overall am spending that was insane. City did it to even more insane levels I would agree with that.
posted on 6/10/14
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 2 minutes ago
SAF but the point is that Wenger is insinuating that he can't afford players like Costa while at the same time paying more for the likes of Ozil and Sanchez.
It's like me saying that I can't afford to shop at Selfridge's after I've just bought a few expensive things in Harrods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends what exactly he means...
If he's stating he couldn't have bought just one individual then that is wrong...
If he's stating he couldn't have afforded to buy them all but just the odd one then he's right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree.
The two most expensive players on the pitch yesterday were Arsenal players. That counts for a lot.
The money is clearly there for Wenger to spend and he's definitely been spending a lot of it.
I actually think that Wenger's words yesterday were an insult to the many other PL teams who could only dream of being able to spend the type of money that Arsenal spend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this. How can Wenger complain about money when the 2 biggest signings on the pitch are from Arsenal. I'm just getting tired of Arsenal using money as a excuse for losing. When they use to beat us back in the day, i never once heard us say 'u only beat us cos u have more money'. We took our beating and went on to the next game. These gooners including the manager just can't stop using the money thing as an excuse. Yes money helps u buy better players but you still need a manager to adopt tactics and a playing style that gets the most out of the team.
if it was just about who has the most cash than Real Madrid win the CL every season, Man utd win the premier league every season, and everyone else would be just there to make up the numbers.
posted on 6/10/14
But you got to admit that united got "lucky" 3 times, if not for that they would have been spending big. You had the golden age that came through all at the same time that no club has been able to replicate over the last 20years, you have had arguably the best manager ever and you had the sky money. Yes United done very well but you take those 3 things away and well you can see what you have left. A team that needs to spend to keep up, that's the way of things. United got lucky with the golden age and I doubt in our life time we will ever see that type of quality come through, that saved you millions in transfers and also with the likes of Beckham netted you some nice profits. All swings and round about off the field as well as on it.
posted on 6/10/14
People always mention sky money as of we had some huge advantage...
We have one of the fairer tv deals in terms of spread out of the top leagues and any extra we would have received for being shown more than say Liverpool (which wouldn't have been too often) wouldn't have added up too much. Regardless the argument is about spending rather than earning. In terms of earning we probably did earn more than the rest, no one criticises earning money though, they criticise the excessive spending of it....
We did fairly well out if our youth but the thing we did that other clubs didn't is make the most of it. Look at the list of players West Ham have produced since '92, it isn't a million miles of what United have produced in the last 22 years.
Chelsea also have had some good youngsters came through, Matic could have stayed a Chelsea player rather than get swooped out for Luiz and bought back expensively...
Whereas say someone like Kieran Richardson or Gibson we got a few years of service out of and sold them on for a fee as well. United really made the most of their youth, as well as having a better return than most from it. I still don't think we would have done the insane spending levels as you can see from SAFs later years even if the youth werent all that great we still used them quite a bit.
Didn't Chelsea have Mourinho for one of their biggest spending periods? I would rate SAF over him but Mourinho is a top manager, if having SAF is a reason we didn't need to spend big (or insane should i say) surely the same could have been said of Chelsea with Mourinho?
posted on 6/10/14
Gunnerbegood - are they great managers because they nurtured or because they won things?
I think the great managers know what they need... Ferguson was not shy at throwing money around to get the players he wanted - equally if the players he had were good enough, he recognised that he didn't need to spend. Academy or buying players - it doesn't matter, the manager is there to win football matches.
There are plenty of clubs who nurture young players and help them grow... but when the players feel the need to move on to progress their careers that is not a good sign for where the team stands in the big scheme of things.
posted on 6/10/14
SAF - agree re West Ham's youth system... its scary to think how good they could have been if they were able to keep them. Unfortunately West Ham are in a different position to Utd and they needed to sell players.
posted on 6/10/14
Mr M, I rate Mourinho, don't get me wrong, but his record with nurturing is not great. He is great with organising teams and handling massive egos, but winning with a team of ready made world class players is relatively speaking not as hard as doing it with a mixture of raw talent and big purchases.
I don't consider Mancini and Pellegrini as greats, but they won titles with City using the same template.
posted on 6/10/14
Gunner - I know what you mean, i guess my question is - how important is nurturing really? Your job as a manager is to win - the owners want trophies and the fans want trophies... if you produce a winning team does it really matter if you nurture or not?
There are lots of managers who have nurtured and not won... and there are a few who have managed to nurture and win (Ferguson was incredible). There are plenty who have only spent and still lost... but a manager is judged on his team's success on the pitch.
posted on 6/10/14
I think you want nurturing from a long term manager though, they don't need to be as good as SAF was.
I just don't understand why more of the bigger clubs don't fill the gaps in their squad with youngsters, I am not suggesting chucking a youngster straight into the first XI (though with the occasional really talented one you can) I am just thinking of filling in the gaps in the squad with the youngsters.
I think its something SAF did as well as bringing players into the first team, Keiran Richardson probably saved us a packet as backup for various positions and we got a few million out of him when he left, despite the fact he's not a great player by any stretch of the imagination...
Basically without nurturing ability you need a little bit more money.
The one major advantage is you can get a player you could not get without it. Lets say like United with Ronaldo, the only reason we had him is because we bought him when he was raw and teams like Real Madrid didn't want him for their first team, because of that we had the best player in the world for a couple of years.
It he'd gone elsewhere and developed then United would probably have missed out as he would have gone to Real from them...
Thats slightly different side of it, buying youngsters than bringing them through the academy but it still has a nurturing aspect.
posted on 6/10/14
Well this is perhaps where the game has changed - besides Wenger who else is a long serving manager? I think the average reign is less than 2 seasons (correct me if I'm wrong) - so in that case can a manager afford to worry about the long-term? He has to get results.
Ferguson was unsackable, and Wenger will not get the push... everyone else is under pressure to get results, and in the big clubs to get trophies - finishing second is unacceptable (Mancini, Ancelotti).
Nurturing is a bonus, and will save/make the club money... but it doesn't necessarily help win matches or trophies and that is ultimately the aim.
posted on 6/10/14
Surely a long term manager who can stay for at least say 6-7 seasons (if not more like 15) should be the goal of every club though?
Maybe there is x or y that requires some short term thinking for the moment but in the longer term surely most clubs would like to get a manager in who can stick around for a while and get on with things like long term planning safe in the knowledge he will (probably) reap the rewards for his work.
At least for me it would always be the long term aim, maybe as a United fan having SAF here for so long I have a different view to other people though?
posted on 6/10/14
Surely a long term manager who can stay for at least say 6-7 seasons (if not more like 15) should be the goal of every club though?
----------------------------
Ideally yes but unless there is a rule change of some kind clubs will continue to hire and fire managers and Utd will be no exception to that.
posted on 6/10/14
Everyone will continue to hire and fire managers but if every clubs goal in the long term is (or should be) to have a manager that sticks around for a while then nurturing is definitely a talent you want in your manager.
I'd like to think United will do it again (maybe not quite 26 years though!) and sooner rather than later. Not saying we are somehow special or unique but I think we have more chance of doing it than Chelsea, who are used to a very different mentality...
posted on 6/10/14
Not saying we are somehow special or unique but I think we have more chance of doing it than Chelsea, who are used to a very different mentality...
-----------------------------
What happened with Fergie was a freak of nature and won't be repeated.
Utd hired and fired many managers before Fergie and they'll continue to do the same after.
Normal service is resumed.
posted on 6/10/14
Not saying we were going to repeat SAF, just that we have more chance of getting a long term manager in than Chelsea as we seem to believe in that format more than Chelsea do...
That isn't to say LVG, or even the next one or the one after that will. Just that we will probably try for it more than a team like Chelsea will.
posted on 6/10/14
Surely a long term manager who can stay for at least say 6-7 seasons (if not more like 15) should be the goal of every club though?
======================
Interesting thought but has never and will never be the case. Clubs have always sacked failure and whilst it may be more prevalent today it is nonetheless how it's always been.
Page 2 of 3