Sir Alex Appreciation Thread

[London Calling]

Man Utd have always been one of the biggest clubs in the world. Whilst it is possible to suggest that he made them what they are today, it is quite clear that they were the first team to take the initiative when the money began to roll in. The team that started tonight were bought for over £110m. Would they he be lifting the European Trophy tonight, if Man Utd did not have so much money? It was a fair sum of money that saved his job at Man Utd in the first place.

I am not denying that he is a good/great/stupendous manager, but the best? Football has been sanitised by money and I don't think there is a fair comparison for football today and football of yesteryear. He has one of the easiest jobs in football.

Best manager ever? I don't think so and surely unquantifiable.

Plus, the clout to attract the best British talent when young, and pay top wages and staff condoitions.

Obviously he is a great Manager, he obviously gets on well with his squad.

But if you go back to Paisley days, whilst financially Liverpool had more cash than most and the glory, the differnce relatively between clubs was not great. Witness, Ipswich, Derby, Notts F winning the League. Paisley set the elite standard then, establishing himself rightly as the best.

 

[Buzzer]

Quick question: Apart from the 1990s side of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes et al can anyone name ANY half decent player to have played for United that Taggart hasn't bought?

So, does that make him the best just because he had the finances to buy the best? I'd say that Wenger is the better manager.

 

[Gazwag]

So why didn't Liverpool make the most of it?

because they were not at there best when sky appeared

 

[Buzzer]

because they were not at there best when sky appeared

In a nutshell, Gazwag. Absolutely spot on.

 

[Knotty]

because they were not at there best when sky appeared

But you said that United weren't successful before Sky! So if Liverpool weren't and United weren't, why has one done better than the other?

 

[Wozza]

But you said that United weren't successful before Sky! So if Liverpool weren't and United weren't, why has one done better than the other?

United began peaking when Sky started showing football.

Also, Liverpool were privately owned and, for many years, quite backward in commerical areas.

 

[London Calling]

Basically, ManU already with a bigger financial clout and world wide presence, were able to dominate the football market, lets not forget the wealth coming in from winning a Premiership and how it sets you up better than the others the following year.

Whilst Man U and Chelsea keeping winning the Prem, they will distance them selves futher away again.

 

[Knotty]

United began peaking when Sky started showing football.

Also, Liverpool were privately owned and, for many years, quite backward in commerical areas.

So if they were peaking when Sky started they must have been doing something right before Sky.

Agree about Liverpool. They should have shared in the successes of United, Arsenal and Chelsea.

 

[Knotty]

Basically, ManU already with a bigger financial clout and world wide presence, were able to dominate the football market, lets not forget the wealth coming in from winning a Premiership and how it sets you up better than the others the following year.

Whilst Man U and Chelsea keeping winning the Prem, they will distance them selves futher away again.

But why did they have a worldwide presence and financial clout? Success and a following built up over many years starting with Busby.

If only the Albion could have done that!

 

[Zesh Rehman]

Quick question: Apart from the 1990s side of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes et al can anyone name ANY half decent player to have played for United that Taggart hasn't bought?

So, does that make him the best just because he had the finances to buy the best? I'd say that Wenger is the better manager.

As far as buying great players and developing them goes, Wenger is by far the best manager, but overall he isnt in my opinion

 

[Gazwag]

But why did they have a worldwide presence and financial clout? Success and a following built up over many years starting with Busby.

If only the Albion could have done that!

If Albion lost most of their squad in a place crash then maybe they would have done, how much of United worldwide fanbase started that night

 

[London Calling]

But why did they have a worldwide presence and financial clout? Success and a following built up over many years starting with Busby.

If only the Albion could have done that!

Thats right, but even before that, when most of the revenue of a club came through the turnstyles. If your getting 60,000 every week and little no where near manchester, such as Stockport are getting 5,000.

You are going to be able to offer better wages, attract the best, old Bobby Charlton, didn't go to Newcastle did he?

You attract the best, more will want to see you, Man U were fantasically placed for a British club in the late 50's and 60's and in some respects only Celtic with their huge support could equal them in British terms.

Lets not forget the side that dominated European football, Real Madrid had the crowds - 100,000 plus and the state - Franco fascists - a word in the ear always helped a Spaniard to chose the right club!

Man U also were sharp and tapped that international market and that market demand for English football, which may not be the best, but does offer great entertainment!



LC

 

[London Calling]

As far as buying great players and developing them goes, Wenger is by far the best manager, but overall he isnt in my opinion

Never totally convinced by that, it is often quoted that WEnger found Henri?

Found?

He was already playing in the French squad that won the World Cup?

Boy that must had been hard to find him?

 

[Knotty]

If Albion lost most of their squad in a place crash then maybe they would have done, how much of United worldwide fanbase started that night

Who knows? But you can hardly blame the club for that, can you?

I'm not sure how much worldwide as opposed to UK fanbase started that night. I think most of it has grown with the increase of worldwide TV, the money that comes from that, and the marketing ability that comes from the money.

If the Albion, or any other club, had ever been in that position they would have done the same.

 

[Zesh Rehman]

Never totally convinced by that, it is often quoted that WEnger found Henri?

Found?

He was already playing in the French squad that won the World Cup?

Boy that must had been hard to find him?

Yeh i wouldnt say he found Henry, he'd been playing well for Monaco and France, but dont forget he moved to Juventus and was SHIT and it was then that he moved to Arsenal and saved his career.

 

[Knotty]

Thats right, but even before that, when most of the revenue of a club came through the turnstyles. If your getting 60,000 every week and little no where near manchester, such as Stockport are getting 5,000.

You are going to be able to offer better wages, attract the best, old Bobby Charlton, didn't go to Newcastle did he?

You attract the best, more will want to see you, Man U were fantasically placed for a British club in the late 50's and 60's and in some respects only Celtic with their huge support could equal them in British terms.

Lets not forget the side that dominated European football, Real Madrid had the crowds - 100,000 plus and the state - Franco fascists - a word in the ear always helped a Spaniard to chose the right club!

Man U also were sharp and tapped that international market and that market demand for English football, which may not be the best, but does offer great entertainment!



LC

Agree with all of that.

 

[Icy Gull]

I don't appreciate him and whatever the rest of you think I reckon his team have been lucky in the last two Champion's league finals. Both times the opposition have hit the woodwork twice. They used to talk about lucky Arsenal, the mantle has been passed

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

He is a grade A TWAT. Didn't realise there were any plastic fans on here.

 

[Knotty]

I don't appreciate him and whatever the rest of you think I reckon his team have been lucky in the last two Champion's league finals. Both times the opposition have hit the woodwork twice. They used to talk about lucky Arsenal, the mantle has been passed

You could also argue that a shot that hits the woodwork is not on target so is not as good as an attempt that IS on target and is saved by the keeper or a defender. Three of those for United last night.

Chelsea's goal deflected off two United defenders before Van der Sar slipped. Lucky Chelsea?

What is luck? I don't believe either side was unlucky last night and the 1-1 was a fair result. The only bad luck is that such a match has to be decided on penalties.

 

[Icy Gull]

You could also argue that a shot that hits the woodwork is not on target so is not as good as an attempt that IS on target and is saved by the keeper or a defender. Three of those for United last night.

Chelsea's goal deflected off two United defenders before Van der Sar slipped. Lucky Chelsea?

What is luck? I don't believe either side was unlucky last night and the 1-1 was a fair result. The only bad luck is that such a match has to be decided on penalties.

True except the keeper made the saves which is what they are there for, all 4 that hit the woodwork had the keeper beaten so an inch either way and United would have lost the 1st one 3-2 and last night 3-1. So imo they were lucky in both finals.