So why exactly did SAF underspend so heavily during the final years of his reign?

Probably a mix of several reasons.

Glazernomics meant we just didnt have as much available to invest as we do now.
Attachment to older players who had won so much with him but were all aging together.
Belief in several players coming through, misguided or not.
We were still extremely competative.
He knew he was retiring soon, didnt want to sign a lot of players the next manager might not be keen on. Look what happened to Zaha.

All in all he left us in what should of been a great spot for any competent manager to come in to. A good, if aging squad full of mentally strong winners that just needed some young legs adding to it, and plenty of cash in the bank to do so. If Mourinho had taken over that squad, sure we would of won at leat one more league title between then and now.
 
He underspent because he hated agents and knew he didn't need the best of the best everywhere.
 
Also because he kept winning titles. Why spend if you have the best team in the country?

Mind you we did struggle in Europe at times.
 
I think because the Club at that time was at a critical period in terms of finances and debt management. Also we must remember the tremendous increase in revenue and the competitiveness has made it impossible to wait and watch or develop unknown players and still keep on winning.
Also SAF could get the best out of each player.
 
Oneunited26 said:
its one of three reason's

its either
1 the debt was eating our transfer spending
2 he just wanted to win a couple of PL titles before leaving
3 or he thought the market was over priced

Its why he was quoted in the value for money era, hell we did not even sign the next generation of players like he did in 2003, michael owen of all PPL took the number 7 shirt. We went from signing big players, to obertan, owen, diouff and valencia, and it took 3 summers before we signed that impact player like RVP. I can't think of another top club sells the worlds best player and signs michael owen in its place lol, that sounds like a glazer model to pay off their debts because their manager can turn water into wine
Click to expand...

Yes. Or in fact, likely all of those things.

And to someone who said Ferguson wouldn’t have accepted purse strings - he was actually very good at accepting the business end of owners and boards and clearly deemed it important not to rock the boat and to respect the economical expertise and the power hierarchy of a club.
 
I believe that the Glazer debt level was a factor.
I believe that SAF was perhaps a bit unrealistic with how fees had escalated and this was a factor.
I also believe that SAF had faith in his squad and didn't feel the need to splurge tens of millions on new players.
The perceived underspend was a combination of each of these factors.

Its also worth reminding ourselves of some of the players in SAFs squad in 2012....
De Gea
Rafael
Valencia
Evra
Jones
Rio
Evans
Berbatov
Rooney
Giggs
Smalling
Hernandez
Vidic
Carrick
Nani
Young
Van Persie
Scholes
Fletcher
Kagawa
Zaha
 
The market was one reason. Prices are much more inflated now. Plus he had a good squad of players that stood the test of time. If we look at our best XI
De Gea
Valencia
Jones
Young
Rashford

All of the above were already at the club when SAF was.
 
MaxiPaxi said:
Article from 08/01/2010

Basically we were fed a lot of horse shit. There is no way Sir Alex didn't rate the likes Sneijder, Yaya, Robben, Ibrahimovic, Kaka, David Villa, David Silva, Samuel Eto'o, Tevez, Aguero, Who all ended up moving clubs (for reasonable fees) in in the next 2 years. How would any of them not have improved us? It's just bollocks. Clear as day.

Whilst all of those players I've named went on to have stellar careers elsewhere - we signed:

Gabriel Obertan, Michael Owen, Antonio Valencia, Mame Biram Diouf, Lindegaard, Bebe, Hernandez, Smalling, Jones, De Gea, Young.

Only Valencia, De Gea, Hernandez, improved us. The rest of the signings were bang average. Although, Smalling and Jones were highly rated at the time.

We also had huge midfield problems with Hargreaves constantly injured and subsequently being released and with Scholes retiring - only to come out of retirement not too long after.

It's fecking farce if you ask me.

You either have to blame Sir Alex for not willing to spend the money - which history shows he always was willing - breaking transfer records. Or you have to blame the Glazer's for not giving us the funds. I know who I'm blaming for the absolute shit show that left us recovering up until now.
Click to expand...

100% my thoughts and reasoning entirely. He said what we said to protect the club, to do that and still get success is the mark of man's ability. The fact he'll never come clean about the glazers, well that might be more down to being highly rewarded by them.
 
Flying high said:
The Glazers get far too much of an easy ride on here. They literally risked the existence of our club for personal gain. We have been paying their debt ever since.
Click to expand...

Yep 100%. Now we're in a period of investing heavily and regularly in the squad (desperately needed to try and be/stay a champions league playing side) most have forgotten the missed chances and frustration of watching the Ronaldo money going to pay debt interest payments. Yet the glazers did far more damage than a few baron transfer markets.
 
His biggest mistake is not about strengthening the side but getting Moyes in. That team with one or two midfield players would have won the PL the following year too provided we had a good manager. Every year we buy a player or two. RVP was still a top player and Kawgawa under a different manager may become one.
 
I think its a combination of things. One is the debt. Two is the Glazers never felt they needed to break the bank while still winning. Finally, I think he was morally opposed to paying the agents fees that became commonplace. That hurt him when going after top talents.
 
Neither Gill nor Fergie wanted to destroy wage structures or encourage agent's greed.
Fergie would not have bought the majority of players bought by United since his retirement even with all the money in the world. He would still have added to our title wins.
Real football is not played on computer screens ( yet anyway).
He would have wanted to buy Sanchez, he did before he joined Barca. But he would never have sanctioned the wages demanded, then and certainly not now. If the TV rights money starts going south ( as it might) then United will face problems with an over-bloated wage bill.
 
Foxbatt said:
His biggest mistake is not about strengthening the side but getting Moyes in. That team with one or two midfield players would have won the PL the following year too provided we had a good manager. Every year we buy a player or two. RVP was still a top player and Kawgawa under a different manager may become one.
Click to expand...

To be fair I reckon SAF thought Moyes would humbly come in and say "you're the champions, this whole setup is better than anything I've previously been worthy of, so it's business as usual, keep everything as it is."
Instead he changed everything, had a disaster in the transfer window, then too many of the players (particularly RVP) sulked and downed tools. Kagawa was useless aside from commercial benefits.
 
It was a perfect time for the Glazers. They could run the club on the relative cheap because Fergie mainly kept winning. Fergie couldnt rock the boat as it was his actions with the coolmore mafia and rock of gibralta horse fiasco that opened the door that let them in. Thats why there was never no value in the market.
 
I don't think he felt he needed to spend. Looking at how much we won over his last few years that is hard to argue. He also seemed to have a high opinion of certain players like Jones, Evans, Fletcher and Valencia. Rightly so when you look at the way they performed under him.
 
fredthered said:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jan/13/manchester-united-debt-glazer-family

Under the original terms of the loan deal the Glazers were not permitted to use club funds to pay off the PIK debts. So what they did was issue a £500 million bond issue which would then allow them to use up to £70 million a year to pay off debts. They didn't pay off the PIK debts with Uniteds money, that much is true. They borrowed the money via the bond issue, paid off the PIK debts and then stung United each year to pay off what they owed on the bond issue.

You are simply playing with words. They didn't use Uniteds money to pay off the PIK loans, they used Uniteds money to repay the loan they took out to pay off the PIK debts. Pretty much the same thing in all honesty.

As for there being £150 million in the bank for Fergie to spend, if that were the case why did they take out a rolling credit facility of £75 million for player purchases. If the cash was there they wouldn't have needed a loan facility.
Click to expand...
This.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.