More with less...

[Paul Marin]

OK continue playing the ass.

LOL!! Okay - genius.

For anyone interested in understanding why this imbecile's assertion that Manu is the "model" for his asinine "more with less" theory, which he attributes to Manu's rise to dominance in the 1990s, understand that history paints a very different picture. Even when Liverpool was tearing up the top flight, Manu was generating more revenues and spending more, with a few notable exception years.

As much as I hate to say it, Manu has "always" been a bigger club than LFC.
In the 1960s, Matt Busby took on unprecedented spending after the Munich tragedy, buying Denis Law for the insane price of £115,000 and made many £30,000+ purchases. That team went on to win the European Cup - the first English side to do so.

While the 70s and 80s unquestionably belonged to Liverpool, Manu** (due to LFC's boardroom incompetence) remained the bigger club. They had a much bigger fan base and much bigger stadium. In those days, TV money was not like it is now.

With the onset of the 1990s, and the Ferguson era, there are some important FACTS to note that refute the ridiculous notion that the Forum's Resident Jackass's "more with less" theory is trying to assert.

First: when Ferguson took over the club, the club went into huge debt to acquire players like Paul Ince, Mike Phelan, Gary Pallister and several others. It was this team that nearly got Ferguson fired, because they took longer than expected to bring expected results.

Second: Manu**'s owner at the time out maneuvered the rest of the Premier League with very clever executive recruiting. These guys knew what the hell they were doing. They capitalized on the club's enormous notoriety (being enhanced by the minute with satellite TV) and transformed the club into a global brand. They put the Manu** label on EVERYTHING. Soda, wine, champagne, beer, candy...you name it, they slapped their ugly face on it. Making money from merchandising and branding was sensibly a lot more stable income than depending on winning. They also expanded into Asia attracting untold millions of fans in China craving Premier League football.

Third: Manu** uprgraded their stadium. It is still the largest football stadium in the Prem. That increased match day revenues significantly.

Fourth: They went public. Manu**'s profitability, brand equity, and growth prospects were behind a very successful public offering raising several million, further stabilizing the club.

Fifth: Partnerships and diversification. They did big deals with Sharp, BSkyB, cellular giant Orange (I may be wrong on that one), BBC etc. etc. plus launching their own MUTV channel.

The bottom line is that Manu** was by FAR England's most profitable club at the onslaught of the Premier League, profitability that they used to amass significant debt that the club ploughed back into acquisitions, e.g. Cantona, Keane, Dion Dublin (remember him), Beckham, Yorke, Andy Cole, Soljskaer were all acquisitions that cost a PILE of money in the 1990s. And that spending went on into the 2000s - Rio Ferdinand was the most expensive defender in the world (him or Thuram).

That was not "more with less" my friends. Their transfers were record-breaking year over year. Their transformation to dominance was built on a combination of luck, tiefin (ask Howard Webb), good coaching (vomit, spit, fart), smart acquisitions all on the back of a solid financial foundation that allowed them to spend a BUCKET LOAD!

Of course, this model is now defunct. Chelsea and City have changed the stakes...they don't have a business model that requires debt repayment. Manu** and the rest of the Premier League do. But clubs are getting more solid financially with their own TV channels, stadium upgrades, and increasing shares of record TV deals as the Premier League becomes a globally dominant brand. At the end of the day, the way to amass silverware in the modern game is almost 100% linked to wage bill and squad value. If you don't have the money to get there, you are fkd, or you are Everton.

As much as it pains me to say it, Manu** beat LFC on and off the field. They bought better players, had a better manager, and commercialized their brand in a way that LFC still can't match. FSG are only now realising after years of cautious farting around, that we can't get to dominance without getting serious in the transfer market. Breaking the transfer record for a keeper and a defender is not a sign of "more with less" but "more with more" ... more(better) players with more (money - whether it be debt or equity matters not).

There. Class dismissed. X - please leave the dunce cap on your chair. I'm sure you will be needing it tomorrow.

[Rockman]

How important was your fabricated 'tiefing' part to our success,and are the million facts you cited regarding worthwhile initiatives spearheaded by Man U all secondary to that success?

[Lazie]

LOL!! Okay - genius.

For anyone interested in understanding why this imbecile's assertion that Manu is the "model" for his asinine "more with less" theory, which he attributes to Manu's rise to dominance in the 1990s, understand that history paints a very different picture. Even when Liverpool was tearing up the top flight, Manu was generating more revenues and spending more, with a few notable exception years.

As much as I hate to say it, Manu has "always" been a bigger club than LFC.
In the 1960s, Matt Busby took on unprecedented spending after the Munich tragedy, buying Denis Law for the insane price of £115,000 and made many £30,000+ purchases. That team went on to win the European Cup - the first English side to do so.

While the 70s and 80s unquestionably belonged to Liverpool, Manu** (due to LFC's boardroom incompetence) remained the bigger club. They had a much bigger fan base and much bigger stadium. In those days, TV money was not like it is now.

With the onset of the 1990s, and the Ferguson era, there are some important FACTS to note that refute the ridiculous notion that the Forum's Resident Jackass's "more with less" theory is trying to assert.

First: when Ferguson took over the club, the club went into huge debt to acquire players like Paul Ince, Mike Phelan, Gary Pallister and several others. It was this team that nearly got Ferguson fired, because they took longer than expected to bring expected results.

Second: Manu**'s owner at the time out maneuvered the rest of the Premier League with very clever executive recruiting. These guys knew what the hell they were doing. They capitalized on the club's enormous notoriety (being enhanced by the minute with satellite TV) and transformed the club into a global brand. They put the Manu** label on EVERYTHING. Soda, wine, champagne, beer, candy...you name it, they slapped their ugly face on it. Making money from merchandising and branding was sensibly a lot more stable income than depending on winning. They also expanded into Asia attracting untold millions of fans in China craving Premier League football.

Third: Manu** uprgraded their stadium. It is still the largest football stadium in the Prem. That increased match day revenues significantly.

Fourth: They went public. Manu**'s profitability, brand equity, and growth prospects were behind a very successful public offering raising several million, further stabilizing the club.

Fifth: Partnerships and diversification. They did big deals with Sharp, BSkyB, cellular giant Orange (I may be wrong on that one), BBC etc. etc. plus launching their own MUTV channel.

The bottom line is that Manu** was by FAR England's most profitable club at the onslaught of the Premier League, profitability that they used to amass significant debt that the club ploughed back into acquisitions, e.g. Cantona, Keane, Dion Dublin (remember him), Beckham, Yorke, Andy Cole, Soljskaer were all acquisitions that cost a PILE of money in the 1990s. And that spending went on into the 2000s - Rio Ferdinand was the most expensive defender in the world (him or Thuram).

That was not "more with less" my friends. Their transfers were record-breaking year over year. Their transformation to dominance was built on a combination of luck, tiefin (ask Howard Webb), good coaching (vomit, spit, fart), smart acquisitions all on the back of a solid financial foundation that allowed them to spend a BUCKET LOAD!

Of course, this model is now defunct. Chelsea and City have changed the stakes...they don't have a business model that requires debt repayment. Manu** and the rest of the Premier League do. But clubs are getting more solid financially with their own TV channels, stadium upgrades, and increasing shares of record TV deals as the Premier League becomes a globally dominant brand. At the end of the day, the way to amass silverware in the modern game is almost 100% linked to wage bill and squad value. If you don't have the money to get there, you are fkd, or you are Everton.

As much as it pains me to say it, Manu** beat LFC on and off the field. They bought better players, had a better manager, and commercialized their brand in a way that LFC still can't match. FSG are only now realising after years of cautious farting around, that we can't get to dominance without getting serious in the transfer market. Breaking the transfer record for a keeper and a defender is not a sign of "more with less" but "more with more" ... more(better) players with more (money - whether it be debt or equity matters not).

There. Class dismissed. X - please leave the dunce cap on your chair. I'm sure you will be needing it tomorrow.

So what you saying? Trendsetter? I'm curious why is 'td' showing as '**'?

[Jangle]

As much as it pains me to say it, Manu** beat LFC on and off the field.

All those many words just to say this.

[HL]

De hole a dem a bum rush Paul.............................................. ..........

Paul, defend yuself starrr!!

Mek dem move a gwey!!.........................................

[Paul Marin]

How important was your fabricated 'tiefing' part to our success,and are the million facts you cited regarding worthwhile initiatives spearheaded by Man U all secondary to that success?

Let's put it this way...if there are 1 million facts and YOU choose to focus on that alone, clearly there must be some reticence in you...go look in the mirror, then we can talk.

[Paul Marin]

So what you saying? Trendsetter? I'm curious why is 'td' showing as '**'?

LOL! Unu mek me laugh. I won leave that alone, my only interest was to factually disapprove out resident klon's premise that that today's LFC can be compared to Manu** in the 90s. Facts speak for themselves.

[Paul Marin]

All those many words just to say this.

You read all of that and that is the conclusion you come to? Now, if you continue to demonstrate your inability to read and comprehend, I will have no choice but to get you a dunce hat of your own. I admit I may have a hard time finding one that is shaped in a square though, it was tough enough finding one shaped like a peas for X.

[Paul Marin]

De hole a dem a bum rush Paul.............................................. ..........

Paul, defend yuself starrr!!

Mek dem move a gwey!!.........................................

LOL! Mek dem come! Facts a hot dem.

[Jangle]

There is "Facts" and then there is "Alternative Facts"

[Sir X]

He misspoke.

[Sir X]

You post your facts ,cite no source ,no reference,no link and expect us to believe the most popular and successful British club from the late 60s,70s,80s to early 90s in the U.K and europe by extension the world,was out spent by a then midtable club flirting with bankruptcy at times and relegation ,to rise to world dominance by having deeper pockets, when LFC was at its zenith ?


Continue making an ass of yourself,H.L has faith in you.....Claffy or is it 5th columinst ,just say it, because we all can see you out and about in your Man U panties on the corner selling your soul.

You are a Man Uite !

[Assasin]

mi think you have faith inna the German keeper. How comes the faith so short live??

Mi hear say him spill the ball in a friendly against Tranmere and Klopp decided that it nuh matter how much the Italians want, him have to get a new keeper.

[Paul Marin]

You post your facts ,cite no source ,no reference,no link and expect us to believe the most popular and successful British club from the late 60s,70s,80s to early 90s in the U.K and europe by extension the world,was out spent by a then midtable club flirting with bankruptcy at times and relegation ,to rise to world dominance by having deeper pockets, when LFC was at its zenith?

Like I said, you are a dunce. It is not that hard to find that information. Unlike you, I don't make sh!t up out of my arse. You're quite stupid.
Here - hug this up to start, but I doubt you'd understand it.

An excerpt for you #jackass:

After Busby gave up the job of manager in 1971 the club experimented with a series of managers but enjoyed little playing success over the next twenty years. This was the Liverpool era. Over this period Liverpool won 11 League titles, was runner-up six times, won the FA Cup three times and was runner-up twice, won the European Cup four times and was runner-up once and won the UEFA Cup twice. This was a sustained and unprecedented dominance of English football by one club. And yet, despite not winning a League title or European competition over the period, Manchester United remained a much better supported club than any other, including Liverpool. Table 2 compares the ranks of Liverpool and Manchester United in terms of league position and attendance at league matches.

Before you kick in with your customary IGNORANCE, fan support in those days was MUCH MORE important as TV money was distributed evenly across all 4 leagues. Secondly, the article goes on to say:

In the Summer of 1989. Between July and September Ferguson was allowed to go on a spending spree. He bought five players: Gary Pallister, Neil Webb, Paul Ince, Mike Phelan and Danny Wallace for somewhere in the region of £8m, an astronomical outlay for the time. That season the club spent £5.2m net on transfer fees.
--
It goes on to say:

It was the transfer spending in the summer of 1989 that marked the watershed for the club, in particular the acquisitions of Pallister and Ince, who formed the backbone of the team over the coming years. While Ferguson had wanted to buy in the market for some time, it seems that it was only the miscalculations of the Knighton takeover bid that freed him from the financial constraints.

I guess that's more with less. You are one stupid fk!

So...here's ONE source #jackass, give me ONE of yours (didn't think so)
https://www.london.edu/faculty-and-r...-so-successful

Note that my source here is the London School of Economics, please don't bring me one of your grade school bloggers as a reference. Oh wait...you have no reference do you? As "out of your ass" don't count.

[Sir X]

Dumb fart- di man says 1989 ,what happened before that, surely you don't conflate attendance with financial support,I am sure other clubs could say they had better attendance,e.g Newcastle but the financial support is no where near LFC.

What are the financial numbers post Fergie Man U knocking LFC off it's perch,we out spent Man U a couple of seasons ,and fell short our best years were with Hollier and Benitez.

Dumb fart.Also the article clearly states Man U wished they had money like LFC to buy the best,which means Fergies Man U got more out of less😏

Man can Suh fool🙄