Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Bob Paisley v Alex Ferguson



eastlondonseagull

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2004
13,385
West Yorkshire
Paisley won an incredible 21 trophies in the NINE years he was at Liverpool, including three European Cups, a UEFA Cup, six league titles and three consecutive League Cups.

In the 21 years Fergie's been in charge at Man Utd, he's won 27 trophies.

Who's the better manager? ???

.
 




Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,222
Living In a Box
Paisley IMHO as he won 3 European Cups.

Note younger viewers those that won their actual league or were previous season winners entered the European Cup as opposed to 4th place in the Premiersh1te which qualifies for the Champions League.
 


Timbo

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
4,311
Hassocks
I think when Bob Paisley was manager there was a much more level playing field. Ferguson has acheived an incredible amount but I think the Manchester United board have acheived more in creating a global brand to fund what Ferguson has done.
 


Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,222
Living In a Box
I think when Bob Paisley was manager there was a much more level playing field. Ferguson has acheived an incredible amount but I think the Manchester United board have acheived more in creating a global brand to fund what Ferguson has done.

Disagree Liverpool were prepared to pay top dollar for players such as Dalgleish, Lawrenson and Wark.

However they also invested shrewdly in players like Robinson / Aldridge.
 


Scotty Mac

New member
Jul 13, 2003
24,405
hasnt done enough in europe - yet
 


Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,222
Living In a Box
Sir Alex won the european cup at a time when United operated with a strict salary cap, meaning he was unable to buy the top players in the world. It's only the last few years they've spent big, and he was winning trophies long before that.

Rubbish he won the watered down Champions League not the European Cup.
 


El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,913
Pattknull med Haksprut
Disagree Liverpool were prepared to pay top dollar for players such as Dalgleish, Lawrenson and Wark.

However they also invested shrewdly in players like Robinson / Aldridge.

Liverpool

Dalglish £500k
Lawro £900k
Wark £440k

These were all BARGAINS

Fergie this season has spent THIS season alone

Nani £17m
Anderson £14m
Hargreaves £17m
Tevez (Loan for 1 year then £30m)
Kuczak £5m

United can afford to make expensive mistakes (step forward countless goalkeepers, Veron) and pay the top wages , Liverpool under Paisley rarely did so.....The Albion were paying higher wages than Liverpool in the early 80's for example.

Paisley also had the grace to talk to the BBC!
 




Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,222
Living In a Box
Liverpool

Dalglish £500k
Lawro £900k
Wark £440k

These were all BARGAINS

Not bargains they were the going rate at the time as I am sure Dalgleish was a British transfer record at the time.
 


Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,222
Living In a Box
Which, arguably, is tougher to do. For example, in the old days you might only have had Madrid representing Spain, but the winners of the champions league now also have to overcome Barcelona, Valencia and Sevilla. In Italy, maybe just Milan would qualify, but now you must beat Inter, Roma, and Juventus too.

Was just as hard then and the correct format as opposed to countless pointless games that mean nothing except to bean counters.
 






Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,222
Living In a Box
I very much doubt they were at the time! They were probably still the most expensive signings around. Using that logic, the £17m spent on Owen Hargreaves will, in 20 years, look like a "bargain" when clubs are spending £50m on players.

Agreed on that
 




eastlondonseagull

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2004
13,385
West Yorkshire
People were staggered when Trevor Francis went for a million, so the £900K on Lawrenson was a lot of money.

Hang on, £900,000 back then - what the f*** did we do with all that cash?!

.
 


1234andcounting

Well-known member
Mar 31, 2008
1,609
Cloughie, of course (even though he would appear not to be eligible).

I would also add that neither Paisley nor Ferguson put their clubs in a position where they could be so dominant (Shankly and Busby respectively, although at least Paisley was involved.
 


Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,222
Living In a Box
People were staggered when Trevor Francis went for a million, so the £900K on Lawrenson was a lot of money.

Hang on, £900,000 back then - what the f*** did we do with all that cash?!

.

And to think Atkinson had agreed a deal for Lawro to move to MUFC till Liverpool hijacked the deal I believe.
 


Herne Hill Seagull

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2003
2,985
Galicia
Paisley also had the grace to talk to the BBC!

And when he did, he didn't rant, he didn't apply pressure on refs about timekeeping, he didn't play psychological mind games with other managers, he didn't accuse any other team of 'cheating their manager'. In short, he had class which Ferguson will go to his grave lacking.

Ferguson is not fit to lick the dead man's boots clean.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,788
Surrey
Both excellent managers in their respective times - and genuinely impossible to see who is better.

Whilst Ferguson presides over a club with the most money, it is also worth remembering that Ferguson:
a) won the (proper) TREBLE, which is something no other manager of an English club has done
and
b) he also won a European trophy with a small provincial club; putting that into context, I don't think a smaller British club has won any form of European gong since then.

But Paisley's head to head record is certainly significantly better, no doubt about that, although he never had to deal with *sustained* competition from other clubs really.
 


El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,913
Pattknull med Haksprut
Both excellent managers in their respective times - and genuinely impossible to see who is better.

Whilst Ferguson presides over a club with the most money, it is also worth remembering that Ferguson:
a) won the (proper) TREBLE, which is something no other manager of an English club has done
and
b) he also won a European trophy with a small provincial club; putting that into context, I don't think a smaller British club has won any form of European gong since then.

But Paisley's head to head record is certainly significantly better, no doubt about that, although he never had to deal with *sustained* competition from other clubs really.

Fergie's achievements with the Dons are fantastic, as is his trophy record with United, but given that United have been the richest club in the world for at least ten of the last twenty years, then a record of one European Cup win in that period (and let us not forget, they were outplayed for 89 minutes of that game), is poor given the resources available to him.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here