That 65million was a big time one off, He signed Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves and Tevez, But this was right in the middle of chelsea's big spening surge. So he hardly did it when they couldnt.
Ferguson attacks 'kamikaze' buys
- Thread starter BBC Sport
- Start date
- Replies 107
- Views 6K
That 65million was a big time one off, He signed Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves and Tevez, But this was right in the middle of chelsea's big spening surge. So he hardly did it when they couldnt.
All that shows is that he's prepared to pay high prices for the right player.
Man U's youth academy is full of foreign players
also signed bebe and hernandez. But also Man U do bid more when rival clubs are interested in players. Eg ; Vidic was going to sign for Fiorentina but then at the last minute Man U offered more. also bebe may have signed for 7.4m but Ferguson said that he had to rush a bid and bid a higher amount to beat off competition for his signature. I am sure there are more deals where man u have had to bid ridiculous prices to sign players which rivals want.
Last edited:
To be fair to ferguson it was hardly an attack or a rant.
"It doesn't seem to abate, that is for sure. Over the last two or three years we have seen very wealthy owners become part of football clubs and therefore go on this kamikaze effort to spend their money.
"It is amazing the amounts of money that are being bandied about in the present day game. You may think it could be dangerous, but you think they have that kind of money and, if they have it, they are certainly using it. I don't see it abating.
"I think the kind of spending we are seeing at the moment will be here for two or three years, until such time as they understand you can't necessarily achieve all the time by spending."
"It doesn't seem to abate, that is for sure. Over the last two or three years we have seen very wealthy owners become part of football clubs and therefore go on this kamikaze effort to spend their money.
"It is amazing the amounts of money that are being bandied about in the present day game. You may think it could be dangerous, but you think they have that kind of money and, if they have it, they are certainly using it. I don't see it abating.
"I think the kind of spending we are seeing at the moment will be here for two or three years, until such time as they understand you can't necessarily achieve all the time by spending."
Jay Pricey
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,289
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
At least United still have great english talent through our academy. Will Keane is supposed to be VERYYY good 
not only is your point off topic, but also wrong, since 23 out of our 38 academy players are english, hardly full of foreignersMan U's youth academy is full of foreign players
you say you are sure there are more deals? show me these deals
Will keane is the future.At least United still have great english talent through our academy. Will Keane is supposed to be VERYYY good
(H)
Lol SAF can spend as much as he wants as he is using Club generated money. Thats not at all the problem. You earn it, you spend it. It is called building on Success. This article is all about mega rich owners who just buys a spends their own money and without whom clubs cant even spend half of that.
He is speaking what every person thinks. Just that he is SAF, people start slating him. We much as he spends, he balances books buy selling which many just ignore and act as Mr Knowledgale saying he broke so many transfer records, fact is we have sold so many and net transfer is very less when you compare to the success we had in 20 years.
And we always buy unknown for small and ok price and develop him with club culture which many clubs can only dream of.
He is speaking what every person thinks. Just that he is SAF, people start slating him. We much as he spends, he balances books buy selling which many just ignore and act as Mr Knowledgale saying he broke so many transfer records, fact is we have sold so many and net transfer is very less when you compare to the success we had in 20 years.
And we always buy unknown for small and ok price and develop him with club culture which many clubs can only dream of.
/rant on
Prior to this summer, of the 50 most expensive signings adjusted for transfer inflation, 15 were made by Alex Ferguson.
They include such unknowns as:
Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron, Carrick, Yorke, Cole, Van Nistelrooy, Berbatov, Saha, Stam, Ronaldo, Anderson, Keane, Hargreaves and Nani.
In today's money, those players wouldn't leave you with much change from the better part of £450m.
And those are just those in the top 50. There's a whole raft of expensive signings who aren't in the top 50 - Hughes and Pallister and....
I'm not sure how the argument that this is 'sustainable' works here. Manchester United's initial funding came from the benefits of listing themselves on the stock market and it providing Martin Edwards with money to play with. That initial cash windfall paid for stadium expansion and player purchases. It allowed Manchester United to do things which other clubs were unable to do because they didn't fancy taking the risk of being owned by any Tom or George (erm, yeah, crashing on...) although given Edwards' habit of peeping under the cubicle doors of women's public toilets it was a quantum leap forward in ownership for Manchester United.
Why is City's spending so wrong? If the Arabs get bored, they're screwed but then if the Glazers decide to reduce the transfer budget at Manchester United to nothing, so are they. We're screwed at Liverpool and we've made a profit on transfers for the past three years.
What difference does it make where the money comes from? Chairmen and boards of directors have always put their hands in their pockets to fund signings and wages when they were chasing success - this idea of self-sufficient clubs is nonsense. Chelsea and City now have owners with bigger pockets than ever seen before. They may not sell as many bars of branded soap as other clubs, but does it really matter? They'll have their day in the sun and then collapse down the league table as the money is withdrawn again.
It's how football has always been and the only difference for Ferguson seems to be that now he's unable to go out and buy a whole new team (as he did with Edward's money).
/rant off
Sorry - but it's as deluded as some of our lot pretending that the Moores taking more interest in us than they did in Everton didn't have a big part to play in the power shift on Merseyside to pretend that Ferguson has had success without being heavily financially backed.
Prior to this summer, of the 50 most expensive signings adjusted for transfer inflation, 15 were made by Alex Ferguson.
They include such unknowns as:
Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron, Carrick, Yorke, Cole, Van Nistelrooy, Berbatov, Saha, Stam, Ronaldo, Anderson, Keane, Hargreaves and Nani.
In today's money, those players wouldn't leave you with much change from the better part of £450m.
And those are just those in the top 50. There's a whole raft of expensive signings who aren't in the top 50 - Hughes and Pallister and....
I'm not sure how the argument that this is 'sustainable' works here. Manchester United's initial funding came from the benefits of listing themselves on the stock market and it providing Martin Edwards with money to play with. That initial cash windfall paid for stadium expansion and player purchases. It allowed Manchester United to do things which other clubs were unable to do because they didn't fancy taking the risk of being owned by any Tom or George (erm, yeah, crashing on...) although given Edwards' habit of peeping under the cubicle doors of women's public toilets it was a quantum leap forward in ownership for Manchester United.
Why is City's spending so wrong? If the Arabs get bored, they're screwed but then if the Glazers decide to reduce the transfer budget at Manchester United to nothing, so are they. We're screwed at Liverpool and we've made a profit on transfers for the past three years.
What difference does it make where the money comes from? Chairmen and boards of directors have always put their hands in their pockets to fund signings and wages when they were chasing success - this idea of self-sufficient clubs is nonsense. Chelsea and City now have owners with bigger pockets than ever seen before. They may not sell as many bars of branded soap as other clubs, but does it really matter? They'll have their day in the sun and then collapse down the league table as the money is withdrawn again.
It's how football has always been and the only difference for Ferguson seems to be that now he's unable to go out and buy a whole new team (as he did with Edward's money).
/rant off
Sorry - but it's as deluded as some of our lot pretending that the Moores taking more interest in us than they did in Everton didn't have a big part to play in the power shift on Merseyside to pretend that Ferguson has had success without being heavily financially backed.
Last edited:
Zebedee you posted such a big post still you didnt mention anything about club generated money and some one else funding.
I know you are very good poster when it comes to liverpool but when it comes to SAF and Manutd you are as blinded as any pudian.. Sorry for that,.
I know you are very good poster when it comes to liverpool but when it comes to SAF and Manutd you are as blinded as any pudian.. Sorry for that,.
actually hes fairly bang on ( much as i hate to admit it). he's certainly less one eyed than you are. does SAF have a point? certainly yes. but it's also a case of pot kettle black. you seem totally unwilling to accept any serious criticism about united. i assure we are far from a perfect club, on and off the pitch. We're just much better at getting past our flaws that any club
I know we are far from perfect club. All i said was many just use this article just to vent out frustration on SAF. Fergi made a good point, he didnt criticize anyone, if you read properly all he said was "rich owners are spending too much money, many feel its dangerous, but Fergi thinks it will continue for some time" Now say what was wrong in that? He didnt ask anyone to stop spending. He said it will continue.
I might be biased but neither one eyer nor "Be good, do good kinda acting posters" like some.
the crazy spending of money is nothing new, the difference is that we cant do it, hence his comments. you really think he'd be so vociferous comments if we had the same financial clout of 5-6 years back? Thats the real issue here. These comments are clearly partly to do with the situation we find ourselves in
and lets call a spade a spade, if youre gonna take a thinly veiled swipe at someone, at least have the balls to say it up front
Last edited:
City's first team squad are at least 120k per week on average. That's 3 times Man Utd's wages. Your point being....?
First of all, Balotelli isn't already an international. He only made 1 appearances for Italy so far, while Wayne Rooney had already scored 4 goals in Euro 2004, a big international tournament, when he signed for Man Utd. And there is one more massive difference here - wages. Rooney is reportedly on a 90k per week contract RIGHT NOW, and Balotelli is reported to be earning 180k per week RIGHT NOW in Man City. That's twice the money that Wayne Rooney, now already a proven goalscorer and performer at the highest level, is earning.
Let's talk about the wages of City's players, shall we? Robinho - 165k, Adebayor - 140k, Tevez - 140k, Yaya Toure - 200k, Mario Balotelli 180k, Kolo Toure 120k, David Silva 160k, Patrick Vieira 100k, Joleon Lescott 95k, Wayne Bridge 90k, Gareth Barry 80k, Craig Bellamy 95k (I assume City is paying his wages now, because no way Cardiff could afford it), Jerome Boateng 85k, Stephen Ireland 85k (assuming the Milner receives the same amount, although I'm pretty sure he will be receiving more) etc.
Now let's look at Man Utd. Rio Ferdinand 110k, Wayne Rooney 90k (no contract renewal yet), Berbatov 90k, Scholes 80k, Van Der Sar 50k, Giggs 70k, Fletcher 60k, Carrick 80k, Park Ji Sung 60k, Valencia 65k, Vidic 80k (new contract?), Nani 30k (not really sure about this but I heard no news about it) etc. Can you see the difference there?
Not to mention that Man Utd could definitely generate more revenues per year than Man City for now. There is more to the transfer deals rather than just the amount paid to the club.
My rant time: In the past, Man United and Liverpool have been guilty of spending huge sums of money, but both have spent money earned by the club. So teams at the top had worked their way up the league and then invested wisely to stay there.
OK, it’s true that CL money helped to ensure that the top 4 always had more money from their successes and, therefore, since 1992, had an edge.
Then came Abramovic.
Many would argue that Chelsea bought the league, whether that’s entirely fair is arguable. In the year before Abramovic came in, Chelsea finished in 3rd place, so it could be argued that they were already a big club and who’s to say that within a couple of more years, they wouldn’t have progressed a couple more positions. It is possible that all they did was accelerate their progress by splashing the cash.
My worry is that we now have a situation where billionaire owners of teams who are not earning the money to invest are now ploughing in small or even large fortunes merely as a hobby or plaything and are in danger of destroying the game completely.
Man City, even Spurs to an extent, possibly Blackburn to come are skewing the game by introducing vast sums of money from outside the game. Even Chelsea can now be considered guilty because they are in a position to spend large sums of money from earnings but continue to plough in external money and write off loans.
Now, some of the teams, whether because the have short term cash-flow problems or not, may very well show that it is not necessary to plough in vast sums in order to win trophies.
United had their greatest period of success when groups of players came through the academy together. Scholes, Giggs, Becham, Nevilles, etc etc. Now it looks like they will try to do the same again.
Liverpool, did a similar but not as effective thing with Fowler, Owen, McAteer, Gerrard, Carragher etc but because the youth system has not been as strong as united’s in recent years, are now buying bargain players and supplementing with smaller, but growing, numbers of youth.
Arsenal are concentrating even more on youth and, whilst they have not a recent trophy to show, it has to be argued that their methods do work as they have not failed to be there in the mix for many years.
OK, it’s true that CL money helped to ensure that the top 4 always had more money from their successes and, therefore, since 1992, had an edge.
Then came Abramovic.
Many would argue that Chelsea bought the league, whether that’s entirely fair is arguable. In the year before Abramovic came in, Chelsea finished in 3rd place, so it could be argued that they were already a big club and who’s to say that within a couple of more years, they wouldn’t have progressed a couple more positions. It is possible that all they did was accelerate their progress by splashing the cash.
My worry is that we now have a situation where billionaire owners of teams who are not earning the money to invest are now ploughing in small or even large fortunes merely as a hobby or plaything and are in danger of destroying the game completely.
Man City, even Spurs to an extent, possibly Blackburn to come are skewing the game by introducing vast sums of money from outside the game. Even Chelsea can now be considered guilty because they are in a position to spend large sums of money from earnings but continue to plough in external money and write off loans.
Now, some of the teams, whether because the have short term cash-flow problems or not, may very well show that it is not necessary to plough in vast sums in order to win trophies.
United had their greatest period of success when groups of players came through the academy together. Scholes, Giggs, Becham, Nevilles, etc etc. Now it looks like they will try to do the same again.
Liverpool, did a similar but not as effective thing with Fowler, Owen, McAteer, Gerrard, Carragher etc but because the youth system has not been as strong as united’s in recent years, are now buying bargain players and supplementing with smaller, but growing, numbers of youth.
Arsenal are concentrating even more on youth and, whilst they have not a recent trophy to show, it has to be argued that their methods do work as they have not failed to be there in the mix for many years.
For those having a go at Real Madrid because they bought Ozil when they didn't need him - SAF said himself he only bought Bebe that fast because the very same Real Madrid were after him too.
Hypocracy at its best. Hopefully some Man Utd fans can retain their dignity by taking off their red tinted glasses and admitting it's quite feeble of Ferguson to say this.
Hypocracy at its best. Hopefully some Man Utd fans can retain their dignity by taking off their red tinted glasses and admitting it's quite feeble of Ferguson to say this.