34 years

[papereyes]

LOL @ Buying success, especially saying that about Man Utd. Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over. :oxf*rd:

United have brought success, it happened at the beginning of the Premier League era. May not have been 10s of millions but they were outspending everyone around them.

The didn't buy success though, they spent the 10s of millions because they earn't it by being, SUCCESSFUL.

At the turn of the 80s into the 90s, United were not successful but were capable of breaking the British transfer record at the time (for Keane) and the British transfer record for a defender (for Pallister) as well as spending what were then significant sums on players such as Parker (£2 million in 1991 [World transfer record then = £8 million and Platt was the most expensive Englishman at £5.5 million] and Wallace (£1.2 million in 1989) let alone Phelan (£1 million signing in 1989) and other over-priced journeymen that dominated the United squad of the late 80s.

Cole was brought in for £7 million the season before Scholes et al broke through.

After that - fair play to them. But they spent a lot for little return in that period as Fergie struggled to get his side together.

It's essentially why the fans almost ran out of patience with him.

[daswonder]

At the turn of the 80s into the 90s, United were not successful but were capable of breaking the British transfer record at the time (for Keane) and the British transfer record for a defender (for Pallister) as well as spending what were then significant sums on players such as Parker (£2 million in 1991 [World transfer record then = £8 million and Platt was the most expensive Englishman at £5.5 million] and Wallace (£1.2 million in 1989) let alone Phelan (£1 million signing in 1989) and other over-priced journeymen that dominated the United squad of the late 80s.

Cole was brought in for £7 million the season before Scholes et al broke through.

After that - fair play to them. But they spent a lot for little return in that period as Fergie struggled to get his side together.

It's essentially why the fans almost ran out of patience with him.

Thanks papereyes for that.

[boy1985]

I see your point, but did they spend more than they could afford? They made money from high gate receipts. The gate receipts were high because they had a lot of fans. They had a lot of fans because they had been successful.

What Man United did is completely different to what Chelsea and Man City have done.

[soggy biscuit]

Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.

[papereyes]

I see your point, but did they spend more than they could afford? They made money from high gate receipts. The gate receipts were high because they had a lot of fans. They had a lot of fans because they had been successful.

What Man United did is completely different to what Chelsea and Man City have done.

Definitely but there simply weren't any teams like Chelsea and City then.

I don't know for sure but, off the top of my head, I know they were in a certain level of financial hardship around 1990, 1991 and there was a lot of financial wranglings around the club - Knighton, floating on the stock exchange. My hunch would be that they over-reached slightly and the whole 'Work the youth angle' was perhaps a result of that as much as anything else.

What they did after that success was build on it and I have no issues with their later transfer dealings, really.

Other than 'GLOLazers Out'

[papereyes]

fwiw, my memory is of Spurs tending to be the big spenders in that period and they won absolutely shite all.

[TheMaraudingDog]

United’s success is built on the back of loyal support through the 70’s and 80’s which meant they built enough capital to invest in top quality players. Even when Liverpool were winning everything United were still pulling the bigger crowds. At a time of little tv and sponsorship money gate receipts made up a large bulk of a clubs turnover so it’s thanks to the loyal supporters which is why United are where they are today.

[Hoop Blah]

United might've generated a lot of their money from being successful but they still spent it.

It's nothing new though, Arsenal in the 30's and 40's were the team with all the money weren't they?

It's pretty hard for a team to win the league without getting in the better players around in any era. Usually those players command the bigger fee's.

Even Cloughie at Forest could be charged with buying some of their success with signings like Shilton and Francis.

[Hoop Blah]

United’s success is built on the back of loyal support through the 70’s and 80’s which meant they built enough capital to invest in top quality players. Even when Liverpool were winning everything United were still pulling the bigger crowds. At a time of little tv and sponsorship money gate receipts made up a large bulk of a clubs turnover so it’s thanks to the loyal supporters which is why United are where they are today.

Money they spent on players though right?

[BR2]

United’s success is built on the back of loyal support through the 70’s and 80’s which meant they built enough capital to invest in top quality players. Even when Liverpool were winning everything United were still pulling the bigger crowds. At a time of little tv and sponsorship money gate receipts made up a large bulk of a clubs turnover so it’s thanks to the loyal supporters which is why United are where they are today.

Nobody is talking about "how" they got to a position where they can spend £30million and more on players.
Once again you have adopted this defensive stance when it's not necessary.
BTW Man Utd have always been big spenders-it hasn't been all about Busby Babes and the early 90s with home-growns making up the team.
Good luck to them and to City who are now following in their footsteps.
Isn't immitation the best form of flattery?

[handbags_harris]

Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.

If "there or thereabouts" is a the following, I'll eat my hat:

96/97 - 6th 16 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup winners, League Cup 3rd Round (Bolton Wanderers).
97/98 - 4th 15 points behind Arsenal, FA Cup 3rd Round (Man Utd), League Cup winners, Cup Winners Cup winners.
98/99 - 3rd 4 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup Q/F (Man Utd), League Cup Q/F (Wimbledon), Cup Winners Cup S/F (Mallorca).
99/00 - 5th 26 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup winners, League Cup 3rd Round (Huddersfield), Champions League Q/F (Barcelona).
00/01 - 5th 19 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup 5th Round (Arsenal), League Cup 3rd Round (Liverpool), UEFA Cup 1st Round (St Gallen).
01/02 - 6th 23 points behind Arsenal, FA Cup R/U (Arsenal), League Cup S/F (Spurs), UEFA Cup 2nd Round (Hapoel Tel Aviv).
02/03 - 4th 16 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup Q/F (Arsenal), League Q/F (Man Utd), UEFA Cup 1st Round (Viking Stavanger).

"There or thereabouts" IMHO is sustained perennial fights for the league title. Granted, Chelsea won 2 x FA Cups, a League Cup, and a Cup Winners Cup in that period, but consistently failed to get into at least the last 4 of these competitions. To be fair, not many clubs get to the semi's of most competitions they enter, but Chelsea's Cup history in the 7 years pre-Abramovich listed above (which IMO was where Chelsea started to actually look like a team which could consistently challenge for honours) is littered with competition exits against massively inferior opposition (Bolton, Huddersfield, St Gallen, Hapoel Tel Aviv, Viking Stavanger), ties in which they weren't unlucky, they were generally outplayed and deserved to lose. Yes they won trophies pre-Abramovich, and deservedly so, but the record above, IMO, is not "there or thereabouts" because it is too scattered and not sustained.

The quick rise to sustained success is IMO mainly due to a £300 million player investment over 3 years from 03/04 - 05/06 (with a return of just £32 million on player sales in the same period), and also to a pretty good coach from 04/05 (who was also a bit of a oxf*rd). So the foundations weren't really there player-wise, because the signing of 31 players over that period of time suggests otherwise. Incidentally, the 03/04 season saw Chelsea sign £153.45 million worth of players, and sell just £100k.

Statistics courtesy of Soccerbase.

[papereyes]

If you back one season, then its a record that's actually more comparable with someone like Aston Villa than teams like Liverpool and Manchester United, isn't it?

[handbags_harris]

If you back one season, then its a record that's actually more comparable with someone like Aston Villa than teams like Liverpool and Manchester United, isn't it?

Lge 11th 22 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup S/F (Man Utd), League Cup 2nd Round (Stoke City).

Yup, it is.

[TheMaraudingDog]

**** **** Would like to congratulate Manchester City on their Rent a Crowd idea that nearly filled their rented ground for the biggest game in the clubs illustrious history. Well done you true Mancunians

Skills

[papereyes]

**** **** Would like to congratulate Manchester City on their Rent a Crowd idea that nearly filled their rented ground for the biggest game in the clubs illustrious history. Well done you true Mancunians

Skills

You could actually hear the stadium as one walked from Picadilly station up towards Eastlands, by the hookers street.

[BR2]

**** **** Would like to congratulate Manchester City on their Rent a Crowd idea that nearly filled their rented ground for the biggest game in the clubs illustrious history. Well done you true Mancunians

Skills

Maybe the true Mancunians can't afford to pay for these extra games unlike the Man Utd fans from the south.
BTW this was far from being the biggest game in their history as they have in their time won the league,the FA Cup and the European Cup-winners cup whereas this was just a quarter-final of the UEFA cup.
Man City fans>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>although less but so much more pleasant (apart from the Gallaghers)than>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Man Utd fans.

[TheMaraudingDog]

**** **** Would like to congratulate Manchester City on their Rent a Crowd idea that nearly filled their rented ground for the biggest game in the clubs illustrious history. Well done you true Mancunians

Skills

Maybe the true Mancunians can't afford to pay for these extra games unlike the Man Utd fans from the south.
BTW this was far from being the biggest game in their history as they have in their time won the league,the FA Cup and the European Cup-winners cup whereas this was just a quarter-final of the UEFA cup.
Man City fans>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>although less but so much more pleasant (apart from the Gallaghers)than>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Man Utd fans.

Earlier you said that they aspire to be like us though

[gh7901]

Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.

If "there or thereabouts" is a the following, I'll eat my hat:

96/97 - 6th 16 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup winners, League Cup 3rd Round (Bolton Wanderers).
97/98 - 4th 15 points behind Arsenal, FA Cup 3rd Round (Man Utd), League Cup winners, Cup Winners Cup winners.
98/99 - 3rd 4 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup Q/F (Man Utd), League Cup Q/F (Wimbledon), Cup Winners Cup S/F (Mallorca).
99/00 - 5th 26 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup winners, League Cup 3rd Round (Huddersfield), Champions League Q/F (Barcelona).
00/01 - 5th 19 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup 5th Round (Arsenal), League Cup 3rd Round (Liverpool), UEFA Cup 1st Round (St Gallen).
01/02 - 6th 23 points behind Arsenal, FA Cup R/U (Arsenal), League Cup S/F (Spurs), UEFA Cup 2nd Round (Hapoel Tel Aviv).
02/03 - 4th 16 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup Q/F (Arsenal), League Q/F (Man Utd), UEFA Cup 1st Round (Viking Stavanger).

Admittidly its not quite 'there or thereabouts' its still a pretty decent record for a club that before they signed Gullit, Zola & Vialli, were very, very average. They got fairly close to being a regular top 4 team without spending enourmous money, something that isnt easy to do. Also getting to the CL QF's was pretty impressive for the club at that time too.

Though I suppose you could argue it was quite different then, certainly wasnt 'the big 4' as it is now - Utd & Arsenal were expected to be top 2 but 3rd and 4th were up for grabs back then

[papereyes]

Its about the same as villa ffs

[handbags_harris]

Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.

If "there or thereabouts" is a the following, I'll eat my hat:

96/97 - 6th 16 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup winners, League Cup 3rd Round (Bolton Wanderers).
97/98 - 4th 15 points behind Arsenal, FA Cup 3rd Round (Man Utd), League Cup winners, Cup Winners Cup winners.
98/99 - 3rd 4 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup Q/F (Man Utd), League Cup Q/F (Wimbledon), Cup Winners Cup S/F (Mallorca).
99/00 - 5th 26 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup winners, League Cup 3rd Round (Huddersfield), Champions League Q/F (Barcelona).
00/01 - 5th 19 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup 5th Round (Arsenal), League Cup 3rd Round (Liverpool), UEFA Cup 1st Round (St Gallen).
01/02 - 6th 23 points behind Arsenal, FA Cup R/U (Arsenal), League Cup S/F (Spurs), UEFA Cup 2nd Round (Hapoel Tel Aviv).
02/03 - 4th 16 points behind Man Utd, FA Cup Q/F (Arsenal), League Q/F (Man Utd), UEFA Cup 1st Round (Viking Stavanger).

Also getting to the CL QF's was pretty impressive for the club at that time too.

And look what happened in their European "adventures" from then on