i think you're creating your own debate now. this started out talking about why fans give respect to fergie but are reluctant to do so to mourinho. the answer is simple and money has nothing to do with it.Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory
i think you're creating your own debate now. this started out talking about why fans give respect to fergie but are reluctant to do so to mourinho. the answer is simple and money has nothing to do with it.
If money has nothing to do with it, then why is it always brought up on here when talking about Jose's achievements? It's the same debate and I'm just using the same yardstick for Fergie that's been used on Jose.
i've just spent the best part of 4/5 posts explaining why.
The money Ferguson spent was generated by the teams performance and the teams he created were built in a piecemeal way.
Mourinho inherited a team with Oscar and Hazard in it, he's spent money on Matic, Willian, Salah etc and yet trots out excuses for why he and his side have under performed like somehow he's Barack Obama and he's inherited a car crash.
How the money is generated shouldn’t really come into it. On the flip side, you’ve criticised Rogers even though he plays a more attractive brand of football.
Ahh whatever….we can all agree they’re better manager than David Moyes!
Well it is relevant because your living off the finances you've helped generate and whilst United have spend a fair amount I'm pretty sure they haven't spent the money Chelsea have in the last ten years. Ferguson may have bought the odd 30 million signing a season, or two or three 15-20 million signings but he wasn't signing six-ten players in that price bracket like Chelsea have done.How the money is generated shouldn’t really come into it. On the flip side, you’ve criticised Rogers even though he plays a more attractive brand of football.
Ahh whatever….we can all agree they’re better manager than David Moyes!
The thing is why wouldn't you spend money if it's available to you, it would be foolish not to at those clubs.
Why is how it's generated important? I just recently found out that Danny Fizsman used £50m of his own cash to invested in our squad and that helped us win trophies. That's a lot of money back then but does that taint us slightly?
Fergie spent money. Before Chelsea arrived they broke records bringing in Veron and Rude.
I'm totally convinced so I guess we'll move on. Attacking football and defensive football is down to a matter of preference. I wouldn't choose a defensive style because I like attacking football. But if you choose to build a solid defensive team to win titles with all the money the club gives you and it wins titles, that's the managers choice.
I hopped in on this debate when Herb mentioned the amount of money Jose has spent and the clubs he's been with and then mentioned Fergie as the better manager. As originally said, if we're going to make comparisons that way, then it's hard to ignore the resources Fergie has had access to.
There is no comparison to a club like United spending money and a club like Chelsea with no constituency, no independent financing that would allow it to spend like United. Before Abramovich bought Chelsea it was well known that qualifying for the champions league in 2003 was not only a massive achieving it was financially essential as it was about to go down the plug hole. And if your asking me to respect a man for spending hundreds if millions at the whim of an oligarch and then win in the most turgid fashion, I cannot do that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote