- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 37,305
Hard to give anything above 2/10.
Its obviously been shite, but I was surprised to see that only Chelsea and City have won more trophies than us since Fergie retired. Obviously if City hadn't been so dominant the others would have won more, but that would also mean we'd won the league twice in the time period.
The reason we are looked at as a shambles and none of the other big clubs are is simply prestige, we are expected to come out on top every single year, so when we don't it's a failure.
Post-Fergie we’ve been like the dude with an 8 ball of cocaine, a Ferrari, and backstage passes to The Rolling Stones who can’t get laid.
To be fair, I should have better padded out the OP as I would've thought the gist behind it was implied, that being for bust cycle after a boom, how have we done.This is a question that does not need to be asked. We all know the answer to it. A better question would be: who are we blaming it for? Even that is a dumb question. Not sure what OP wanted to achieve here that hasn’t been debated/talked about to death already.
Possibly the worst run big club in the history of the sport for a decade we’ve been that poor.
Like others have said this club is a worldwide phenomenon. The fact we haven’t won a league title in 10 years is more impressive than winning one.
It’s failure of the absolute highest order. 2/10 considering we won a few trophies though and second placed finishes.
Post-Fergie we’ve been like the dude with an 8 ball of cocaine, a Ferrari, and backstage passes to The Rolling Stones who can’t get laid.
Relative to the club's resources, spending, and overall standing in the game, I'd agree with the 0/10 appraisal.
It's been a lot worse than expected. I don't think many United fans expected such a massive drop in performance so quickly. Once it became clear that Moyes was taking over, I expected us to not win the league for a few years, but still be comfortably top four and maybe challenging for a title. Instead we immediately dropped to 7th, made baffling transfers that failed to address the real squad issues and got into a merry-go-round of different managers with different styles buying all types of players.
The only positives worth mentioning in this period has been that we have still won a few cups, and we continue to see academy players make it into the first team. And at least we haven't dropped into the bottom half of the table like Chelsea (low bar, I know).
Post-Fergie we’ve been like the dude with an 8 ball of cocaine, a Ferrari, and backstage passes to The Rolling Stones who can’t get laid.
It is a miracle that we still generate this amount of followership and finance seeing how abysmal we have beenAbysmal.
More debt with very little to show for it - billions squandered.
Couldn’t have gone much worse really could it?
To be fair, I should have better padded out the OP as I would've thought the gist behind it was implied, that being for bust cycle after a boom, how have we done.
Objectively, and for the money spent, we can obviously say it's been absolutely shocking, but firing off money blindly whilst not having an identity lends itself to that and as @eire-red stated in their post, we're not the only giant that has done that during a bust period.
Real Madrid and Barcelona exist within a bubble, so too Bayern, but even they have had periods in their history which were objectively disastrous, but within the context of a bust cycle, there's still an assessment to be made as to how bad bad is.
For where we were to the place that has to be temporarily considered home, it's a long drop, but even then, we've won more than most clubs in the country - at our very worst, we're still the 4th most winningest team in the country (our haul of 4, inclusive of a Europa/Uefa Cup is superior to Arsenal's 4 FA Cups, imo) and are due two league titles if '115' is ever dealt with.
If the bust cycle of other giants over large periods were considered, I'm not sure how we've fared would be below average. Milan's collapse has been worse than ours in many ways - they were chasing, and closing in on Real Madrid's CL haul and were by far the glamour club of their league - they're arguably a non-entity now relative to what they were, and even with the league win they had, one would argue are still in their bust cycle.
Actually, here it is:
AC Milan bust period haul 2011-2024:
Serie A: 2021-22
Supercoppa Italiana: 2016
The Supercoppa is a Charity Shield equivalent. I haven't even included those for England because they are meaningless. So, from a superpower to what they are now, Milan have 1 league title or serious trophy in 13 years. That's what a 0/10 or 1/10 looks like to me.
As a club, we were used to being more dominant than City have been (due to our frequency of being in CL finals alongside domestic success), but it was clear that without another injection of funding, the pool would most likely have been diluted as our squad was mostly on its last legs and unless we found some uncut diamonds from the academy or obscure clubs, the rebuild would've not been of the same stock we had become accustomed to. Fergie would always remain competitive, but as Chelsea had already shown, and City were starting to; serious amounts of [focused] money, talks.
10 years, 4 trophies and what should be two league titles, is it something a club underperforming turns its nose up at, or does it suffice in the interim? That's pretty much the TL;DR.
Very good point. Milan simply lacked (or lost) the financial power to stay at the top. United didn't.For me the reason why United's performance post-SAF seems so much worse than any other similar club in decline is just how much money has been used up in order for United to stay competitive only to end up with abject failure. Since 2013 United have spent over 1.1 billion in net transfer fees. That's significantly more than any other team in the same period, around as much as Real, Barca and Liverpool combined and even more than financially doped teams like City, PSG or Chelsea, despite all of them being far more successful.
Milan, meanwhile, have spent nowhere near the same amount of money, less than half in fact. Plus their decline was a lot more gradual. Sure, Milan won another Scudetto under Allegri in 2011, but their last national championship before that came in 2004 and the last time they did anything of note in the Champions League was 2007. United, on the other hand, went from consistently being one of the best teams in Europe to also-rans more or less overnight.
Given all that has gone on and the upheaval we've had as a club, how would you assess this period, accepting it to be one of the famed United slumps between success periods?
For further reference, these are the intervening years between Busby and Ferguson (1969-1986):
Division 2 Champions: 1974-75
FA Cup: 1976-77, 1982-83, 1984-85