When we ruled english football.....

[carheex]

Someone mentioned in another thread today about the soul being ripped from football....largely due to the rich clubs getting the top players and "buying" their successes. I was around in the 70's (and obviously the 80s!) when we were top dog but wasn't interested in the financial side of things and didn't have access to the amount of information around today. So..........just out of interest, during our reign at the top, were we the big spenders of our day and therefore shouldn't really be complaining about the current crop of rich clubs? we all like to boast about our proud history of league titles and european cups.....but is the reality that we have "bought" our history?


Genuinely interested to hear some thoughts on this and see some stats on transfer fees spent amongst the top clubs in the 70's and 80's..............

[BFG]

I'm not in posession of the facts but from the little I know I'd imagine that once we got to the top we spent good money (equal if not more than the other big clubs). That's not what City and Chelsea are doing though.

[red g]

well we have only broken the transfer record once and that was for collymore.

[Warren]

Rushie for £350000 from Chester was a record for a teenager

[red g]

from what i also remember, we were one of the biggest spenders of the late eighties. but then that was back in the day everyone would want to play for us to

the likes of tottenham, villa, birmingam, forest etc all used to spend a few quid from what i remember we were never head and shoulders above others!

[Warren]

I first got into football in the early 80s and being 6/7 at the time obviously wasn't interested in the transfer money side of things but from what I remember going through school age the Mancs were always one of the top spenders even though they were winning **** all

[EwarWoo]

No. We weren't constantly breaking the British transfer record.

In fact I believe the only time we did was replacing Keegan, and we spent less on Daglish than we sold Keegan for.

I remember a couple of occasions when we played against a class player we seemed to buy them quickly after, Michael Thomas and John Barnes, which I suppose could be seen as similar sort of behavior, but neither was chucked massive amounts of wedge I don't think.

I first got into football in the early 80s and being 6/7 at the time

Exactly the same here

[Warren]

In fact I believe the only time we did was replacing Keegan, and we spent less on Daglish than we sold Keegan for.

What a great bit of business that was bought Keegan for 35k sold him 6 years later for 500k and then brought in King Kenny for 440k ****ing beauty

[red g]

No. We weren't constantly breaking the British transfer record.

In fact I believe the only time we did was replacing Keegan, and we spent less on Daglish than we sold Keegan for.

I remember a couple of occasions when we played against a class player we seemed to buy them quickly after, Michael Thomas and John Barnes, which I suppose could be seen as similar sort of behavior, but neither was chucked massive amounts of wedge I don't think.


Exactly the same here

we have only ever broke the transfer record once.....and that was for collymore

[Chrono]

I'm not in posession of the facts but from the little I know I'd imagine that once we got to the top we spent good money (equal if not more than the other big clubs). That's not what City and Chelsea are doing though.

That was kind of the essence of my thread although people seemed to view it as a moan about others doing something we ourselves did in the past, which I don't think is the case anyway.

[gfarnan]

beardsley was a record at the time too

[EwarWoo]

we have only ever broke the transfer record once.....and that was for collymore

Adn what a fantastic buy that was. Let's never break it again.

beardsley was a record at the time too

Same again but, he was replacing Rush who we'd just sold for more than Beardsley cost.

Personally I don't think it counts when you're replacing a player more valuable. If that makes sense.

Both times during our dominant period our record buy was beaten by our record sale.

[barnes10]

personally i think there is a clear division between the way the mancs and ourselves built up our dynasties as opposed to the toys that were overnight successes of blackburn and chelsea and possibly city. its the latter that 'bought the league' in my eyes (clearly not biased). People can't say man u buy the league as they have built up a dynasty over 15-20 years. do they top all of that up with record buys? sure they do but so did we. What they are clearly going to go all out and avoid is taking their eye off the ball (no pun intended) and letting another team sneak in whilst they go into decline.

Could the glazers purchase and this recession or fergie's retirement without the obvious in-house successor be the equivalent of moores inheriting us and pull them down to relative mediocrity? time will tell. but they are a dynasty and they haven't bought it.

both clubs had great managers with long term visions (like benitez and wenger i might add), great tactics and massive support. the commercial side just supported those ambitions.

with the new money elite, its very different isnt it. cherry pick the top players and the top current manager and then get impatient and sack them for a season or two without real success.

so no, neither ourselves nor man u have bought the league.

[red g]

beardsley was only a record betweeen 2 british clubs

[EwarWoo]

beardsley was only a record betweeen 2 british clubs

He was a record British purchase.