Chelsea banned from signing players!

How long have you been supporting Utd? (whoops sorry mate )

What about Rio and Veron? Hardly conference money. They were both British transfer records at the time.

bloody hell you are a defensive lot.
ForteanTimes2009-09-08 17:39:56

I'm not actually as old as you lot... but we're not exactly spending sht loads every transfer season, and we didn't really buy a title when a new investor arrived, like other clubs, such as Chelsea. And our club is much more likely to spend a decent amount for money for an upcoming star, make him a star, then sell him for more.Michael2009-09-08 20:10:48

Berbatov 30 mil
Rio 29 mil
Veron 28 mil
Rooney 20 mil
Carrick 18 mil
Nani 17 mil
Anderson 17 mil
Hargreaves 16 mil
Valencia 16 mil

hmmmm


Sorry mate but football didn't just start around 5 years ago when you started supporting utd. Utd have been creating a  brand to flog to punters since Busby. Nothing wrong with this it's a fact and they have made a mint.

This is how successful teams keep being successful. I don't understand the strange  ideas that many fans have about their teams, being whiter than white or that their success is about some christ-like miracle where their team pick players off the the local park like Roy of the Rovers and never pay a sh*teload of money for cretins like Ronaldo.

The big four buy success - anyone who thinks different is a fool.

the problem with that argument is the history you pointed out.

And theirs generally two or three each season max? Hardly buying titles in the form we are discussing.

And the main point I was trying to make is that United made their money. Chelsea got it.

Agreed that the money eventually bought chelsea a couple of titles but they were already a top 4 club when the russian arrived. From nearly folding as a club in the early 80's when I started going to being a top 4 club by the time Abramovich arrived is success in itself. Long live Ken Bates. Can't go around pinching youngsters like that though. Truth is some clubs won titles at very good times in relation to the explosion of the premiership and football in England. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure in Liverpools hey day (I know that ages ago) they were winning titles with no englishmen. Must have been a couple of players bought in to win those titles.

Hang on the great Steve McMahon was in that squad that year, an English international and a few others, *scratches head will have to have a look..

Goes off to do some googling: Here you go they started the match with no Englishmen. McMahon came on as a sub.

Googles further: Englishmen In the squads 1985-1987


John Durnin
Alan Kennedy
Sammy Lee
Steve McMahon
Phil Neal
Mark Seagraves
Paul Walsh
Alex Watson


Mike Hooper
Nigel Spackman
Barry Venison

Ok I'll modify my argument Utd and Liverpool earned their success, Chelsea and Arse, (Chapman etc), bought it, as did Blackburn as well.

My whole point is that when a team achieves/buys success, they then continue to maintain that success by buying it, (unless they are Leeds or Blackburn). You can buy the best infrastructure, the best coaches, the best players, the best facilities.  Micheal spending around 25million+ a season is way beyond most other teams budgets particulalry if you add in the cost of offering new contracts to keep your top players happy. Throw in champs league funding and perhaps a G14 spot and you are laughing, very little will knock you down.

I'm not knocking it, it just gets me when some supporters of the top teams get all hawty-tawty. That their considerable wealth does not buy them success.
ForteanTimes2009-09-10 10:52:59

FYI - G14 no longer exists.

Holy sh*te I completely missed that!


also Gary Ablett was in that pool squad
ForteanTimes2009-09-10 11:10:12

http://www.footytube.com/video/wenger-defends-the-recruitment-of-young-foreign-players-22297

Some good points made

I heard on the guardian podcast today that the Stoke fans were singing

please not the youth academy fairy tale

# of titles won from products of famed academy from 1970 -1990?

# of titles won after MUFC Board got their favors in from Major then Blair?

the rules around club ownership in England is of far more value than analyzing individual player transfer deals. Unquestionably access to both TV revenue and the sheer slackness in properly regulating club owners has led to MUFC buying every Premiership title they have "won"

worse still is the '99 fable

Schimecal. Keane, Cole, Sheringham, Yorke, Solskarge, claiming your a youth team when your team has this bought talent in it is worse than banal.

then to complain about Chelsea is beyond the pale. Unquestionably Chelsea bought the title, just their manager was good enough to do it first pop, as opposed to taking 6 years.

bring on squad depth, 6+5 and salary cap.
as an Arsenal Fan I can say this with a straight face, Wenger is the best manager going around and on a level playing field econoimically I pick he'd be the most succesful caoch/manager.

so to summarize;

# of titles won from 1970 - 1990?

only a fool would argue with claims regarding players produced from the MUFC youth academy
but to suggest that it is anything but a small fraction of what was required to bring the Title to Old Trafford is to fly in the face of the evidence.

Youth Academy and Homegrown talent are beautiful concepts that makes us all feel good, but the actuality of the situation is far removed from the nostalgia and wishful thinking associated with this.
As you post, the players that did the winning for United were all bought in, and the winning of those titles is unimaginable without such economic privilege.

just like Chelsea eh?

Well, then I think you have set the mark at a level I don't think any club in a major league in the last 25 years can achieve and is therefore guilty or purchasing a title. 

Potentially I agree.

so what has changed in the last 25 years? (probably less IMO)

please don't say Youth Academy

unless real football fans face up to how the game has been pretty much stolen from us things are not going to get better anytime soon.

The trouble is that having a strong academy is no guarantee of producing top players. The best 16 year old in the world may have already have peaked and grow up to be no more than an average player. It's a very hit and miss process regardless of how good your scouting and youth recruiting department is.

There are plenty of clubs outside the top 4 and even outside the EPL with very good academies that don't produce enough of the players to make the team any better.

So, if a team wants to really improve there is no option but to bring in players from outside. Call it buying success if you want but it's how the game works.

The top clubs have been doing it for a very long time (i.e. more than 50-60 years). The difference that I see (and usually where the resentment comes in) is that instead of a team that is already near the top that not only has the financial muscle but also the reputation that is making an incremental improvement (i.e. getting a little bit better every year) you have got mid table teams that have an influx of financial muscle and have "bought" over night success such as Blackburn, Chelsea and now Citeh.

Call it artificial if you want. My only question is is it sustainable and therefore is it good for the game? I mean, look at Leeds!