In Arsène We Trust ~ Victoria Concordia Crescit

[Va-Va-Voom]

Ferguson was a great manager. Better than Wenger. But he had a leg up all those years. He was able to buy guys like Rio and Rooney for 30 mil a piece when our record signing was Arshavin at 15. Doesn’t negate his achievements but he did have a financial advantage.

I know but my point is they generated that financial advantage by dint of their success.

They aren't like Chelsea, City, PSG etc. He grew them into a global behemoth through winning.

So Ferguson won within his resources, the resources he generated.

[Arsene Nose]

Ferguson was a great manager. Better than Wenger. But he had a leg up all those years. He was able to buy guys like Rio and Rooney for 30 mil a piece when our record signing was Arshavin at 15. Doesn’t negate his achievements but he did have a financial advantage.

I know but my point is they generated that financial advantage by dint of their success.

They aren't like Chelsea, City, PSG etc. He grew them into a global behemoth through winning.

So Ferguson won within his resources, the resources he generated.

Only partially true. The glazers purchased united as a leveraged buyout. They didn’t put up the money. They took a loan and leveraged Uniteds assets as collateral. This was always the fan action against them. As a result the only money they spent was to service the loan. They allowed Fergie to spend their considerable earnings on transfers.
In the case of arsenal, kroenke couldn’t go in for a leveraged buyout because the club was already leveraged due to the Emirates loan. So he paid for his shares and used all our earnings to pay down the stadium debt.
It is therefore not an apples to apples comparison.

[theHotHead]

16 trophies in 22 years including the only unbeaten season in a century and a record number of FA cups does not suggest lack of shrewdness or failure.

Didn't he win all but 3 of those in his first 10 years though? Which is amazing of course, but then the next 12 he showed how the game had passed him by.

Exactly, like I said ... "that made him a specialist in failure".

But Arsene Knows wears Wenger coloured glasses.

Wenger was a very nice bloke .... which made him unable to compete when football changed.

Even if you look at the last ten years that’s 8 years of top four finishes and 3 FA cups. Can’t think of anyone other than Ferguson and Mourinho who bettered that in England. Let’s see what happens next.

Dude get it straight - 3 FA Cups in 10 years, nobody cares about top 4 finishes it means f**k all.

[UFGN]

16 trophies in 22 years including the only unbeaten season in a century and a record number of FA cups does not suggest lack of shrewdness or failure.

Didn't he win all but 3 of those in his first 10 years though? Which is amazing of course, but then the next 12 he showed how the game had passed him by.

Exactly, like I said ... "that made him a specialist in failure".

But Arsene Knows wears Wenger coloured glasses.

Wenger was a very nice bloke .... which made him unable to compete when football changed.

Even if you look at the last ten years that’s 8 years of top four finishes and 3 FA cups. Can’t think of anyone other than Ferguson and Mourinho who bettered that in England. Let’s see what happens next.

Dude get it straight - 3 FA Cups in 10 years, nobody cares about top 4 finishes it means f**k all.

It does if you're an idiot troll.

[Arsene Nose]

Consider that football genius Pochetino hasn’t won any.

[theHotHead]

Ferguson was a great manager. Better than Wenger. But he had a leg up all those years. He was able to buy guys like Rio and Rooney for 30 mil a piece when our record signing was Arshavin at 15. Doesn’t negate his achievements but he did have a financial advantage.

I know but my point is they generated that financial advantage by dint of their success.

They aren't like Chelsea, City, PSG etc. He grew them into a global behemoth through winning.

So Ferguson won within his resources, the resources he generated.

Man U were the biggest or second biggest club in England at the time when Fergie joined, they have always had financial clout it's just that money since Fergie joined the club has gone crazy.

Lets look at how transfer fee records have evolved decade by decade since the 1950s:
1950s - £26.5k to £65k (2.45x increase)
1960s - £65k to £165k (2.53x increase)
1970s - £165k to £1.47m (8.9x increase)
1980s - £1.47m to £4.25m (2.89x increase)
1990s - £4.25m to £22.5m (5.29x increase)
2000s - £22.5m to £80m (3.55x increase)
2010s - £80m to £105m (1.31x increase)

I was going to re-edit my comment before these figures but it goes to show that I was actually wrong. The biggest period of movement in transfer fees (relative) was the 1970s where transfer fees went up by 8.9x !!!! Thats ridiculous. Taking that decade away though the 1990s was the next biggest mover. English clubs broke the transfer record 4 times in the 90s, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle.

[Phil71]

Ferguson was a great manager. Better than Wenger. But he had a leg up all those years. He was able to buy guys like Rio and Rooney for 30 mil a piece when our record signing was Arshavin at 15. Doesn’t negate his achievements but he did have a financial advantage.

I know but my point is they generated that financial advantage by dint of their success.

They aren't like Chelsea, City, PSG etc. He grew them into a global behemoth through winning.

So Ferguson won within his resources, the resources he generated.

Man U were the biggest or second biggest club in England at the time when Fergie joined, they have always had financial clout it's just that money since Fergie joined the club has gone crazy.

Lets look at how transfer fee records have evolved decade by decade since the 1950s:
1950s - £26.5k to £65k (2.45x increase)
1960s - £65k to £165k (2.53x increase)
1970s - £165k to £1.47m (8.9x increase)
1980s - £1.47m to £4.25m (2.89x increase)
1990s - £4.25m to £22.5m (5.29x increase)
2000s - £22.5m to £80m (3.55x increase)
2010s - £80m to £105m (1.31x increase)

I was going to re-edit my comment before these figures but it goes to show that I was actually wrong. The biggest period of movement in transfer fees (relative) was the 1970s where transfer fees went up by 8.9x !!!! Thats ridiculous. Taking that decade away though the 1990s was the next biggest mover. English clubs broke the transfer record 4 times in the 90s, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle.

There were long periods of double digit inflation during the 70s. At one point in 1974 it was running at 25%! It stayed at figures between 16% & over 20% for quite a few years. The miners were striking because they were being offered a piddly 13% pay rise!

It was a strange decade economically.

It gradually returned to more normal rates toward the end of the decade.

That might go some way toward explaining the huge difference you've highlighted above.

[LegendaryKeown]

Ferguson was a great manager. Better than Wenger. But he had a leg up all those years. He was able to buy guys like Rio and Rooney for 30 mil a piece when our record signing was Arshavin at 15. Doesn’t negate his achievements but he did have a financial advantage.

I know but my point is they generated that financial advantage by dint of their success.

They aren't like Chelsea, City, PSG etc. He grew them into a global behemoth through winning.

So Ferguson won within his resources, the resources he generated.

Man U were the biggest or second biggest club in England at the time when Fergie joined, they have always had financial clout it's just that money since Fergie joined the club has gone crazy.

Lets look at how transfer fee records have evolved decade by decade since the 1950s:
1950s - £26.5k to £65k (2.45x increase)
1960s - £65k to £165k (2.53x increase)
1970s - £165k to £1.47m (8.9x increase)
1980s - £1.47m to £4.25m (2.89x increase)
1990s - £4.25m to £22.5m (5.29x increase)
2000s - £22.5m to £80m (3.55x increase)
2010s - £80m to £105m (1.31x increase)

I was going to re-edit my comment before these figures but it goes to show that I was actually wrong. The biggest period of movement in transfer fees (relative) was the 1970s where transfer fees went up by 8.9x !!!! Thats ridiculous. Taking that decade away though the 1990s was the next biggest mover. English clubs broke the transfer record 4 times in the 90s, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle.

There were long periods of double digit inflation during the 70s. At one point in 1974 it was running at 25%! It stayed at figures between 16% & over 20% for quite a few years. The miners were striking because they were being offered a piddly 13% pay rise!

It was a strange decade economically.

It gradually returned to more normal rates toward the end of the decade.

That might go some way toward explaining the huge difference you've highlighted above.

A timely reminder of why we need to continue voting wisely, instead of voting for Labour who wreck the economy

[Phil71]

Ferguson was a great manager. Better than Wenger. But he had a leg up all those years. He was able to buy guys like Rio and Rooney for 30 mil a piece when our record signing was Arshavin at 15. Doesn’t negate his achievements but he did have a financial advantage.

I know but my point is they generated that financial advantage by dint of their success.

They aren't like Chelsea, City, PSG etc. He grew them into a global behemoth through winning.

So Ferguson won within his resources, the resources he generated.

Man U were the biggest or second biggest club in England at the time when Fergie joined, they have always had financial clout it's just that money since Fergie joined the club has gone crazy.

Lets look at how transfer fee records have evolved decade by decade since the 1950s:
1950s - £26.5k to £65k (2.45x increase)
1960s - £65k to £165k (2.53x increase)
1970s - £165k to £1.47m (8.9x increase)
1980s - £1.47m to £4.25m (2.89x increase)
1990s - £4.25m to £22.5m (5.29x increase)
2000s - £22.5m to £80m (3.55x increase)
2010s - £80m to £105m (1.31x increase)

I was going to re-edit my comment before these figures but it goes to show that I was actually wrong. The biggest period of movement in transfer fees (relative) was the 1970s where transfer fees went up by 8.9x !!!! Thats ridiculous. Taking that decade away though the 1990s was the next biggest mover. English clubs broke the transfer record 4 times in the 90s, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle.

There were long periods of double digit inflation during the 70s. At one point in 1974 it was running at 25%! It stayed at figures between 16% & over 20% for quite a few years. The miners were striking because they were being offered a piddly 13% pay rise!

It was a strange decade economically.

It gradually returned to more normal rates toward the end of the decade.

That might go some way toward explaining the huge difference you've highlighted above.

A timely reminder of why we need to continue voting wisely, instead of voting for Labour who wreck the economy

It was a lot more complicated than that.

We had a global recession from 73 to 75, which hit the UK very badly. Eventually we had to get bailed out by the IMF in 78.

Besides, the power timeline reads; Heath (Con) 70-74, Wilson (Lab) 74-76, Callaghan (Lab) 76-79, Thatcher (Con) 79. Five years each.

[StLGooner]

Consider that football genius Pochetino hasn’t won any.

Then he isn't a genius, and wash your mouth out for saying so

[SuperJackyWilshere]

Great little interview this

So glad he looks a lot more fresher and healthier aswell.

[Sims]

That was from about 2008

[Va-Va-Voom]

Great little interview this

So glad he looks a lot more fresher and healthier aswell.

Loooool

This is old ffs, why do you think Fabregas is there smiling?

This is that special show they did on Cesc back in 2007 or 2008.

[Marsbar100]

[Ach]