That's a myth that SAF was a big spender.
1992/93
The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.46m
Manchester United : £2.3m
1993/94
The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.5m
1994/95
The biggest spenders: Everton
The spend: £10.9m
1995/96
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.5m
1996/97
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £17.5m
1997/98
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.65m
1998/99
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: £29.35m
1999/2000
The biggest spenders: Liverpool
The spend: £35.9m
Out of the 1990s Manchester broke the record spent 1 season. Then Liverpool broke it the next.
Argentina 1990 run doesn't get enough credit, they had no business being there but still almost get over the line and did it against opposition with quality to boot.
It's a testament to how fecking good he was that even though he apparently had a bad tournament a very average Argentina side still managed to go as far as it did, Maradona made them click and I don't think any other player in history did it to the extent that he pulled it off.
Also measuring his quality only based on his g/a assists contributions is a bit misguided in my opinion, he was a classical number 10 his numbers being so good just underlines how lethal he was in that role , the likes of Messi play much closer to the goal line than he ever did but on the other hand he contributed a lot more than the former to the build up , watch some vintage Napoli games, if he's on the field almost everything goes through him, to do it in a team that lacks any other wc outlet and in a league like that is very impressive.
Definitely similar but no where near the extent that he did it(to be fair this wasn't peak messi).Messi has played many roles - false 9, wing, striker, attacking mid - but if you watched him at 2022 World Cup he was often picking the ball up at the halfway line as well and everything went through him in a similar way to Maradona.
D) It's absolutely ridiculous that you actually believe old players didn't face teams with inferior budget and players as much as today. That reminds me of people claiming Sir Alex didn't spend that much money before when United were breaking records for the prices all the time. Just the amount of money spentchanged.
Oh you want to talk net spent. Sure let's do that.Oh comeon, before Roman took over Chelsea (from 1992 to 2003), United was ranked 2nd in total net spent (90m GBP) with only Newcastle spending more in the same period (97m GBP)
After Roman took over chelsea then then sure, both City and Chelsea spent way more than United
Oh you want to talk net spent. Sure let's do that.
1992-1998 net spend
Newcastle: £40,570,000 (> 4000% more than United)
Arsenal: £31,070,000 (> 3100% more than United)
Liverpool: £29,625,000 (> 2900% more than United spent)
Chelsea: £27,705,000 (> 2700% more than United spent)
Spurs: £18,630,000 (> 1800% more than United spent)
City: £12,070,000 (> 1200% more than United spent)
United: -£40,000
United rank: 7th biggest spenders
1999-2003 net spend
United: £90,050,000
Liverpool: £60,110,000 (United spent 50% more)
Newcastle: £56,950,000 (United spent 58% more)
City: £54,662,000 (United spent 65% more)
Spurs: £46,552,500 (United spent 93% more)
Chelsea: £40,760,000 (United spent 121% more)
Arsenal: £17,916,000 (United spent 403% more)
United rank: 1st biggest spenders
Our only period where we outspend everyone.
2004-2013 net spend
Chelsea: £524,500,000 (325% more than United spent)
City: £434,820,000 (252% more than United spent)
Liverpool: £168,800,000 (37% more than United spent)
United: £123,400,000
Spurs: £100,850,000 (United spent 22% more)
Newcastle: £1,900,000 (United spent 6,395% more)
Arsenal: -£23,570,000 (United spent > 12,300% more)
United rank: 4th biggest spenders
Like I said its a myth that SAF was this big spender. I'm not saying we didn't spend money. But we have never during SAF's time out spend our opponents like they did to us. In that 4 year period we only spent 50% more then the next rival. Where as in the other periods which are a 6 and 9 years, we were outspent by massive margins. Top team Newcastle 4000% and Chelsea %325 more respectively.
I actually think he was, he just didn't get the breaks in Spain.
A) Semantics. They said he doesn't belong in the same tier, you said he's not as good as the the other 3. Still nothing to get upset about unless you have a personal investment.A)
All these posts clearly say he doesn't belong here.
It's different to say the other 3 are better than him, than to say he simply can't even be compared them.
I'm not upset. I see ridiculous claims I reply on them. If I were a Ronaldo fan I'll say it, what's the problem ? It's not like it a crime.
B) Yeah, players from the past played the majority of their games against top teams only. Small clubs started to appear in modern era.
C) I had a point though. Ronaldo had better records, trophies and individual awards than Muller but let's ignore all this and focus on what Muller had over him which is the goals to games ratio and a World Cup with Germany just prove he's the best, and ignore all the other parameters or invent excuses for why Ronaldo had more of them. That has been the discussion about this point so far. Even if both were strikers and Muller had better goals to game ratio, it won't change anything from the fact Ronaldo had the better numbers in almost everything else, and if you persist on the concept that "players from the past only played against big ones", it's really not Ronaldo's fault and shouldn't be used against him that he wasn't playing in the 70s. If that's your point, there's no point arguing who's the best player in history because each era is different from the other.
D) Yes I speak English. It's bullshit though. Look at the current Premier League, even clubs like Everton who have been midtable or even fighting for relegation have been spending ton and ton of money, in some years comparable even to the top 6 spending.
Define a "bit more" ? Either you bring stats that prove Liverpool and Nottingham spending was only a little more than other clubs in this era or I see no point in this.
E) The number of teams winning the league doesn't equate the presence of multiple teams competing at it at once. Teams go up and down and have good seasons and shit ones, but ultimately in the course of the league you'll have 2 or 3 competing for the title at most. The idea that 4 or 5 teams can compete at once in a league season is just not possible and not applicable. In modern days you can see Arsenal, Chelsea and United winning consecutive leagues in the early 2000s, but in reality they weren't competing with each other every season.
I thought you liked to talk about the bigger stages when it matters like the World Cup and Champions League ? No one is saying Muller didn't achieve a lot in his career. IMO Ronaldo achieved more, that's all.
F) Is this for real ? You claim a thing, you bring it to support your argument. I'm not going to search for proofs for your claims, you know. You're the one who mentioned the list, bring it so we can discuss the names in it and what they won and when.
Nobody can rank all these players unless they seen them play live regularly.
These threads are pointless.
I've seen both Messi and Ronaldo. Messi is undoubtedly the better player. It's not even close.
You're cherry picking data. From 1992 to 1998 we were 8th. That is 6 years. From 1999 to 2003 is 4 years where we were 1st. From 2004 to 2013 is 9 years where we were 4th. So 15 years to 4 years is not half. Not even close.So the conclusion is between 1992-2003 United was the 2nd highest spender yes? How is that a myth that SAF was not a big spender?
It was only after roman in 2003 that his spending was dwarved by Chelsea and City, before that (1/2 his stay in the PL) he was a bigger spender than everyone else bar Newcastle, that is a fact not a myth
So you have to be 80 years old to form a legit opinion?
Well, how can you judge the likes of Best/Pele/Eusebio etc from a few youtube clips. The fact is, there are very few people who will truly know how good the top players from the 60's actually were so it's not fair to compare them. There probably isn't a single person on this forum who's seen Pele play in his prime regularly so how can we truly know how good he was. We should just know they were great players and leave it at that.
These comparisons are nonsense for the most part. Players from different generations shouldn't be compared.
Nobody can rank all these players unless they seen them play live regularly.
These threads are pointless.
I've seen both Messi and Ronaldo. Messi is undoubtedly the better player. It's not even close.
Because you don't need to use YouTube clips.Well, how can you judge the likes of Best/Pele/Eusebio etc from a few youtube clips. The fact is, there are very few people who will truly know how good the top players from the 60's actually were so it's not fair to compare them. There probably isn't a single person on this forum who's seen Pele play in his prime regularly so how can we truly know how good he was. We should just know they were great players and leave it at that.
These comparisons are nonsense for the most part. Players from different generations shouldn't be compared.
A) Semantics. They said he doesn't belong in the same tier, you said he's not as good as the the other 3. Still nothing to get upset about unless you have a personal investment.
B) It was a more level playing field across the board. Anyone who knows anything about football history realises that
C) You had no point. CR has more Ballon D'Ors, that's it. And the criteria and context of that award has completely changed. There's literally nothing else he's done interms of goalscoring alone that is better or more impressive than what Muller did. And they're both strikers BTW.
D)Amazing that this has to be explained to someone who purports to be a fan of this sport but here we go. This is why it is a dumb argument to say player X from 2015 has more trophies than player Y from 1970, ergo player X is better:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...l-man-utd-barcelona-real-madrid-a9330431.html
E) Cf the article. Again, this is basic stuff.
F) I didn't 'claim' anything, it's an easily verifiable fact. If you bothered to read the piece, now you know why.
This is the last response I'll be making to you in this. There's no point continuing to go back and forth with someone who doesn't understand something as basic as how the superclub era has changed football.
The United/Ferguson outspending everyone and buying titles myth has been debunked on here many times.
You're cherry picking data. From 1992 to 1998 we were 8th. That is 6 years. From 1999 to 2003 is 4 years where we were 1st. From 2004 to 2013 is 9 years where we were 4th. So 15 years to 4 years is not half. Not even close.
Before 1998 we were out spent by huge margins. That's a fact.
1992-1998 net spend
Newcastle: £40,570,000 (> 4000% more than United)
Arsenal: £31,070,000 (> 3100% more than United)
Liverpool: £29,625,000 (> 2900% more than United spent)
Chelsea: £27,705,000 (> 2700% more than United spent)
Spurs: £18,630,000 (> 1800% more than United spent)
City: £12,070,000 (> 1200% more than United spent)
United: -£40,000
And if you go by year, we have never been the biggest spenders. He is a year by year graph of the pl biggest spenders. Again, what you are saying is a myth.
Nobody can rank all these players unless they seen them play live regularly.
These threads are pointless.
I've seen both Messi and Ronaldo. Messi is undoubtedly the better player. It's not even close.
Up until 1998 we were not big spenders. After that yes we starred to splash the cash but still not like our rivals.Didn't buy titles but thinking Ferguson wasn't spending a lot and won his trophies without a big budget to support his team is just delusional nonsense. There's also nothing to be "debunked". It's not like it's shameful now to spend a lot on your team. Apparently in order to be a great manager for some of you he has to win major trophies without spending cash.
"That reminds me of people claiming Sir Alex didn't spend that much money before when United were breaking records for the prices all the time."So 1992-1998 is not cherry picking data? Why United for 1992-1998 only had a net spent of 40k? I tell you why, its the 1995/1996 season where your sales covered all your 6 years of purchases from 1992-1998.
Why not do a 1992-1996 (not even a net spender) and 1997-2003 (the largest spender or at most 2nd). Why must it be 1992-1998?
Your goalpost kept changing as well, no one said United were the biggest spender (this is a myth), but just a big spender(this is a fact). There is a huge difference between both. I mean can you tell people with a straight face that 90m pre roman is NOT a big spending PL club? How much is big then?
Fact is, between 1992-2013, SAF outspent all but 3 PL clubs. Just because City and Chelsea outspent him (by 2-3 times) doesnt mean he is not a big spender.
Otherwise we can just call Amazon a small company because they only have a 1T market cap compared to Apple’s 2T
"That reminds me of people claiming Sir Alex didn't spend that much money before when United were breaking records for the prices all the time."
This is the Orginal post that I was responding to. I pointed out that that was not true and in the 90's we were not big spenders. Nor were we breaking records for money spend all the time. We did it once and Liverpool broke the record the next year.
Then it was you who brought up net spent. So I said lets go there. So i posted again that in the 90s our net spent was lower then 7 teams.
I never once said we didn't spend money. We just have a different definition of what a big spender is. To me its outspending the competition by large margins.
Ex
1992-1998 net spend
Newcastle: £40,570,000 (> 4000% more than United)
Arsenal: £31,070,000 (> 3100% more than United)
Liverpool: £29,625,000 (> 2900% more than United spent)
Chelsea: £27,705,000 (> 2700% more than United spent)
Spurs: £18,630,000 (> 1800% more than United spent)
City: £12,070,000 (> 1200% more than United spent)
United: -£40,000
That's large margins. And that was all pre roman. If you don't think that's big spending then that's fine.
2004-2013 net spend
Chelsea: £524,500,000 (325% more than United spent)
City: £434,820,000 (252% more than United spent)
This is also large margins. If you don't think so that's also fine. We just have different ideas as to what is spending big. To me again I restate it is outspending the competition by large margins. The ones we are directly competing against to win titles. We have not been big spenders when you look at who we were competing against. The argument was that we were breaking records all the time to win our titles. When that is not true.
Didn't buy titles but thinking Ferguson wasn't spending a lot and won his trophies without a big budget to support his team is just delusional nonsense. There's also nothing to be "debunked". It's not like it's shameful now to spend a lot on your team. Apparently in order to be a great manager for some of you he has to win major trophies without spending cash.
I don't know if anyone's claimed that Ferguson didn't spend that much money, I'm not saying that.
All people are saying as far as I can see is United weren't the biggest/2nd biggest spenders beyond the odd season during Ferguson's reign.
Ferguson worked within a budget, a big budget relative to most teams but United didnt outspend their rivals. We spent big on certain players but not in the scatter gun approach others teams employed. He also had to work within a strict wage cap pre-2000, so United weren't able to offer anywhere near the highest wages in England never mind Europe. We missed out on tonnes of players because of this.
After a short period between 2001-03 when the wage structure was removed and we were spending big we were back not being able to offer the highest fees/wages again post Roman.
I see, you were talking for individual players. I was thinking record for overall transfer outlay. Fair point. My apologies for misunderstanding.Andy Cole, Veron and Ferdinand were all British records for the amount of money spent by a British club. Ferdinand was also the most expensive defender in the world back then. Rooney was the most expensive teenager in the world when United signed him. That's 4 transfer records done by Ferguson at United.
It's worth mentioning Veron and Ferdinand transfers came in 2 years back to back so United broke the transfer record for British clubs 2 years in a row.
So the point about the records I mentioned is true.
I do agree United spending wasn't on the same level of Roman's Chelsea or Man City but some here do actually believe Ferguson was winning trophies using only kids and paying peanuts or something. It's only in the later parts of his career that he started to talk about the no value in the market and all this to defend the Glazers lack of spending for reasons only he knew I guess (and that's when the overall quality of United's main team started to drop year after year due to the lack of investment and filling the team with mediocre players), but in his prime Ferguson had no issues splashing the cash and breaking records.
The funny thing is us spending cash didn't help us that much in the long run, the likes of veron were failures and even though rudd banged golas like there was no end we failed to replicate the success we had beforehand and would go on to have afterwards.Up until 1998 we were not big spenders. After that yes we starred to splash the cash but still not like our rivals.
Well said! Agree with everything. Sir Alex was a genius. So grateful that he was our manager.On the Sir Alex era, its a myth and his spending is often seen as higher than it was.
Much of it revolves around the class of 92. Bringing through such a crop of youngsters allowed United to not have to spread their spend, so Sir Alex could go big on one or two players and not fire hose his money like other clubs. United didn't outspend everyone, they simply spent big on the individual as needed to compliment that great group. A combination of the goat manager, an amazing youth team coming through and United creating some huge financial muscle off the back of being probably the best run club in the world, on and off the pitch.
The only time I remember it looking like United were going to put their foot down and stomp everyone financially was in the Fergie vs Wenger early 00's era (as the class of 92 was coming to its end) but then Chelsea happened.
Uniteds era of most gratuitous spending and only time they've ever been the biggest net spenders is ironically its least successful one (the last decade).
Did Sir Alex spend alot? Yes. Did he spend alot more than his competition? No, in fact he spent less, just more targeted in what he spent it on and because he was there so long its easy to make a list of his top signings and say "look".
"That reminds me of people claiming Sir Alex didn't spend that much money before when United were breaking records for the prices all the time."
This is the Orginal post that I was responding to. I pointed out that that was not true and in the 90's we were not big spenders. Nor were we breaking records for money spend all the time. We did it once and Liverpool broke the record the next year.
Then it was you who brought up net spent. So I said lets go there. So i posted again that in the 90s our net spent was lower then 7 teams.
I never once said we didn't spend money. We just have a different definition of what a big spender is. To me its outspending the competition by large margins.
Ex
1992-1998 net spend
Newcastle: £40,570,000 (> 4000% more than United)
Arsenal: £31,070,000 (> 3100% more than United)
Liverpool: £29,625,000 (> 2900% more than United spent)
Chelsea: £27,705,000 (> 2700% more than United spent)
Spurs: £18,630,000 (> 1800% more than United spent)
City: £12,070,000 (> 1200% more than United spent)
United: -£40,000
That's large margins. And that was all pre roman. If you don't think that's big spending then that's fine.
2004-2013 net spend
Chelsea: £524,500,000 (325% more than United spent)
City: £434,820,000 (252% more than United spent)
This is also large margins. If you don't think so that's also fine. We just have different ideas as to what is spending big. To me again I restate it is outspending the competition by large margins. The ones we are directly competing against to win titles. We have not been big spenders when you look at who we were competing against. The argument was that we were breaking records all the time to win our titles. When that is not true.
Argentina 1990 run doesn't get enough credit, they had no business being there but still almost get over the line and did it against opposition with quality to boot.
It's a testament to how fecking good he was that even though he apparently had a bad tournament a very average Argentina side still managed to go as far as it did, Maradona made them click and I don't think any other player in history did it to the extent that he pulled it off.
Also measuring his quality only based on his g/a assists contributions is a bit misguided in my opinion, he was a classical number 10 his numbers being so good just underlines how lethal he was in that role , the likes of Messi play much closer to the goal line than he ever did but on the other hand he contributed a lot more than the former to the build up , watch some vintage Napoli games, if he's on the field almost everything goes through him, to do it in a team that lacks any other wc outlet and in a league like that is very impressive.
He was no longer at his peak but he could barely run largely due to his ankle. Even then, he could run a game like no one else.It was a totally different WC for him from 1986 because he'd lost a lot of pace by then, even though he was only 30. He couldn't run away from people like 4 years earlier. There was one moment against Brazil when he kind of turned back the clock and went on a mazy run before setting up Canigga. Generally though he'd kind of developed a one/two touch passing game by then and he was using it to pull strings. Argentina only managed to score 5 goals in that WC IIRC.
None of that contradicts my posts. I didn't say he outspent Chelsea or City for example, nor did he bought his titles. I said he spent a lot of cash and broke the transfer records a lot of time, both are true. The point was some believe he won trophies while paying peanuts or depending on kids only which is false. Most of that I clarified in the post I wrote above.
Anyway, I think our points are clear to both of us so we shouldn't drag this thread away from its main topic any further imo.
Pele
Messi
Ronaldo
