we are the biggest club in the world[so i've been told]

Originally Posted by puressence

thats the best gif ever fact ...

The story behind it is pretty ace as well

Sub three hours:

Fair enough - thought the point was players they were in competition for?

The Leeds pair was the best thing Sexton did. Big statement of intent at the time but still no title in sight

Originally Posted by bigMikeA

It depends what your barometers are, obviously - in terms of income and support, absolutely we are and have been for a long time. But we've never really been the biggest in the world in terms of player pulling power

The foreigner rule and our income not being high enough in comparison to the European giants was the reason for that. Neither reasons have existed for the last 10 years. Our income is now large enough but the majority of it is not available to invest in players.

Edwards used to tell people around 15 years ago that united would start to dominate Europe because of the club's financial growth. All that work to build the business to a point we could finally compete with the European giants for the best players and a family from Florida swoop in and take it from us. But that's ok, because we've never bought the worlds best. Not the united way apparently.

and that's never been a problem before because of the players we have had come through from the youth system (amongst many other factors).

It wasn't a problem because our domestic rivals were also restricted by the same two things, and our income was larger than any of them which is why we could attract the top British talent for british record fees.

Originally Posted by sub three hours

I agree but when they were dominant, do you reckon players chose them over us?

United were the bigger, more glamorous club and liverpool were the most successful. If the players weren't united fans then I'd imagine it came down to who offered the largest wage. The likes of dalglish, souness and Hansen would have preferred united but never got the choice.

Professional football is about money. The other things are just side issues that may decide a close decision. In the 80's quite a few players turned us down for more money elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger

The foreigner rule and our income not being high enough in comparison to the European giants was the reason for that. Neither reasons have existed for the last 10 years. Our income is now large enough but the majority of it is not available to invest in players.

Edwards used to tell people around 15 years ago that united would start to dominate Europe because of the club's financial growth. All that work to build the business to a point we could finally compete with the European giants for the best players and a family from Florida swoop in and take it from us. But that's ok, because we've never bought the worlds best. Not the united way apparently.



It wasn't a problem because our domestic rivals were also restricted by the same two things, and our income was larger than any of them which is why we could attract the top British talent for british record fees.

by the standard glazernomics version of the tale, the foreigner rule should have allowed United the ideal excuse to just buy a couple of big foreign stars and pad the rest of the side out with top british talent.

what ferguson actually did was build a team


at the turn of the decade edwards did start blurting out such predictions - but that was only after he'd spent the previous decade feathering his own nest by flogging his and his wife's shares

big money was splashed but within a couple of seasons United had already publicly declared an annual transfer budget would be effected of around £20m iirc - with the rooney deal being the highest profile marker in the sand of how that would work. since then those types of incentive based deals have become the norm

and ferguson responded again by building a winning team:

in the last decade (7 seasons actually) United have been at least as successful as at any time in their entire history, including reaching 3 European Cup finals in 4 seasons.

it's very easy to paint the picture as being a simple case of the glazers wrecking a successful model run on a tight purse string for their own ends. the truth is that they've exploited one.

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

Robson said in his autobiog that he could easily have signed for them... Imagine that

You made it that far? My mind was numb by the end of the second paragraph. Favourite player of all time, worst book I've ever read. Shame.

We certainly were at one point, possibly round the Beckham era.

We don't have enough box-office players these days though. Even the mental far east fans who obsess over us must be bored senseless watching this lot for the last four years as well.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

by the standard glazernomics version of the tale, the foreigner rule should have allowed United the ideal excuse to just buy a couple of big foreign stars and pad the rest of the side out with top british talent.

United couldn't afford the big foreign stars. Neither in transfer fees, nor wage budget.

what ferguson actually did was build a team

Strangely enough he built a team by buying the very best players the club could afford. As every club and manager has always done and always will.

at the turn of the decade edwards did start blurting out such predictions - but that was only after he'd spent the previous decade feathering his own nest by flogging his and his wife's shares

What has him selling his own shares got to do with it?

big money was splashed but within a couple of seasons United had already publicly declared an annual transfer budget would be effected of around £20m iirc - with the rooney deal being the highest profile marker in the sand of how that would work. since then those types of incentive based deals have become the norm

I don't recall the plc stating any transfer budget. They made available what the club could afford, which changed as income and profits rose.

I do recall gill pleading poverty when he took over, but that was mainly an image play to correct Kenyan's £#%&! ups which meant united got screwed in negotiations. Truth is the directors were wondering what to do with all the money they were starting to make.

I also recall the glazers were the ones who mentioned a transfer budget, set at the current rate of plc transfer spending at the time of the takeover. A budget that has not risen during their time in charge, despite large rises in income, profits and huge inflation in the transfer market.

With the same rises in income and profits under plc control, do you think the transfer budget would have remained the same over these past 8 years or do you think it would have increased in line with rising income and kept pace with an inflationary transfer market? What does the 8 years of plc control prior to the glazers suggest?

What is the point or benefit of rising income and profits if it doesn't allow the club to increase transfer budgets to keep pace with transfer market inflation?

and ferguson responded again by building a winning team:

By spending a shit load of money in consecutive summers.

it's very easy to paint the picture as being a simple case of the glazers wrecking a successful model run on a tight purse string for their own ends. the truth is that they've exploited one.

I didn't say they wrecked a successful model. I said they took away united's financial power and flexibility in the transfer market, which had been built up over the previous 15 years. Once they took over, it was run on even tighter purse strings, out of necessity due to the debt they lumped on the club. What they exploited was a cash rich business with no debt. A situation ripe for such a leveraged takeover. Plc takes the blame for that situation.

Given fergie, under the plc, spent more than this 20 million budget you mentioned on individuals such as Rooney, veron, Ferdinand in successive summers along with around that on van nistlerooy. And given they were doing this on much less income and profit the club now makes each year, are you seriously suggesting the purse strings regarding transfers are no tighter under the glazers than the plc?

or Edwards does