

Sir Alex Ferguson Not Going Anywhere, Apparently Hates Old People
By: Taylor Rockwell | June 17th, 2009
About two weeks ago, I was all set to post an article criticizing Sir Alex Ferguson for sacrificing the long term stability of Manchester United in favor of his short term goal of becoming the “greatest manager in the history of English football.” My general theory was that, in the past, Fergie had made a habit of getting rid of players who had begun to value themselves over the club. Stam. Becks. Even Keane. They became too big to exist under Fergie, and so off they went. The short term ramifications didn’t matter, as the longevity and stability of the club were preserved.
Then came Slave. He had bitched and moaned and complained and openly criticized the manager throughout the entire 2008-2009 campaign. And yet, Fergie never seemed to care. What could have been the reason for that? Complacency? Boys will be boys? No. Fergie, it seemed, was preparing for his retirement. The 67 year old had conquered all, but still wanted to go out on top, one title clear of Liverpool. However, he didn’t think he could do it without Slave, so he put up with antics that would have gotten any other player booted from the squad. In effect, I thought Fergie was ready to sacrifice the next five years to make sure that he and Slave got one more title.
For whatever reason, I didn’t get around to posting that piece of amazing insight, and was only just about to when news came through that the deal for Slave was done and dusted. That dramatic shift made me reevaluate the entire situation, and today’s comments from Old Trafford have only compounded my confusion. If reports are to be believed and United aren’t pursuing any players over the age of 25, then we appear to be heading down a whole new road… sort of.
I say sort of because this situation would seem to indicate that Fergie isn’t going anywhere, and is hoping to build his fourth great team. In the past, the £80 million for Slave would have allowed United to sign multiple world class players to immediately insert into the starting eleven. Most, myself included, have been refreshing The Guardian/Soccernet/The BBC constantly in hopes of one day seeing that Fergie has gone out and signed someone amazing. However, we live in a world where Zlatan Ibramhimovic is worth €90 million, Franck Ribery is the most sought after man on the planet, and Glen Johnson is apparently worth over four times what he was two years ago. So, instead of signing big name stars for huge sums, Fergie is electing to pursue young players to mould into world class performers.
We all know how divisive the Berbatov signing was this term. We paid a tidy sum for the man and, when he didn’t immediately impress, people were furious. In this day and age of massive transfer
fees, the question of economic feasibility reigns supreme. Can big clubs afford to pay these massive transfer fees and, if the players don’t pan out, cover the cost of dumping their salary? Look at Liverpool. For all their talk of signing talented cheap players, they went out last summer and paid £20 million for Robbie Keane. Midway through the season, they sent him back to Spurs for £12 million. An eight million pound loss may not seem like a whole lot, but for a club whose owners are facing a hefty bill requiring immediate payment, every little bit counts.
The same goes for United. The club can’t make a habit of dropping £30-£50 million for star players. Just because Franco FC, Citeh, and Chelsea all seem happy to accrue massive debt doesn’t mean United can… or should. Obviously, we’re already a fair amount in the hole (second only to Chelsea in the EPL). United can’t risk compounding that debt by blowing a large amount of money on unproven stars from other leagues. To be certain, the squad will need a considerable injection of talent for the coming campaign. But reactionary spending in an artificially inflated transfer market won’t get the job done. Staying smart, buying patiently, and avoiding potential landmines might. Only time will tell.
For now, I take confidence in the fact that Fergie isn’t rushing out to replace Slave. He isn’t dropping money left and right to unnecessarily elevate United onto the Franco FC/Chelsea/Citeh platform. He isn’t sacrificing the future of the club to bring in big names to win him #19. He’s staying smart, looking young, and reminding United fans that he’ll be here for a while… even if primadona playboys with questionable morals won’t be.
| EPL Match Schedule | Discount Travel to Manchester | |||
| Man. United Scores | Old Trafford information & hotels |
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
![]() |
Comments
-



I don’t think Ronaldo’s sale has any bearing on Ferguson’s retirement. Its just good business. I think this is simultaneously a very good and very dangerous policy, it all depends on how successful the signings are. We don’t want to become like Arsenal, but at the same time Madrid’s policy is just ridiculous. As I pointed out in another post, under this policy we wouldn’t have signed Cantona, which I find quite worrying. Still think we should go for Aguero!
Posted from
United States

-



i think this policy is brilliant. we dont ave to go the way of arsenal bc there are plenty of proven stars under the age of 26, and if you think kaka and cr7 deals were crazy, it’s only going to get worse at some point in the near future, just as they said for zidane. and when it does, we will be the ones cashing in again.
Posted from
United States

-



It’s not the idea of signing youngsters that concerns me, it’s the reasons for it… United don’t exist to be a feeder club, nor should we be looking to sign players in order to bring in a jackpot down the road.
That’s what bothers me here. It seems as though we’ve received one big paycheck, and are now operating under the assumption that similar paydays await (especially if we keep developing young talents).
I was fine with selling Slave because I was sick of him as a person. Imagine if someone offered 90 million for Rooney. I can’t say I would be as thrilled in that event.
Posted from
United States

-



I really don’t think this is going to be an issue because based on The Guardian’s article, it certainly leaves some wiggle room. I think the crux of the piece is that we won’t be spending 30+ million pounds on someone whose best years are behind them, when we could spend 20 million on someone who we could have for many years during their prime and if it doesn’t work out, we can still sell them while they have potential and can get a decent price.
Taylor, your example of Robbie Keane is spot on. Why through away 8 million pounds like that. But say we sign this Douglas Costas fellow for 20 million and he is phenomenal. He helps us win 3 more Prem titles and then says he’d like to move on. He will be 24 and everyone will be drooling over him willing to pay 80+ million.
I think part of this “policy” also touches on the lack of loyalty in football. Do you really think there are going to be many players now a days like Scholes, Neville, and Giggs? I don’t think so, it is just naive to think players will stay at your club forever.
I don’t think we sold Slave just because someone stumped up the money, but moreso because of his attitude and desire to leave. If someone would have bid 80 million for Rooney, I don’t think Fergie would have picked up the phone.
I think that the policy is very smart, prudent business and let’s face it, economic times are very tough, even if you are Manchester United.
Posted from
United States

-



Did I miss something, or were there no actual quotes about this policy in that Guardian article?
“Manchester United have made a long-term decision not to sign any players aged 26 or above for large transfer fees because of new financial stipulations that have been put in place at Old Trafford to shape the club’s recruitment policy.”
Did I miss a press release? Anywho, I agree with Colin.
Posted from
United States

-



I think we all agree, as the crux of my argument was that, while the big name transfers are the most attractive, they also bring the most pressure to succeed…
SEE: Sheva
SEE: Keane
SEE: Veron
SEE: Dinho
SEE: DecoAll that said, C.I.A., you are correct, there were no actual quotes in the article, nor do I think there was/is going to be an official statement… what would it say? “26 year olds need not apply?”
No, I think we’ll do just what Colin said… I just worry about becoming Arsenal… although I suppose there’s no sense borrowing trouble…
Posted from
United States

-



I don’t think we will ever truly become Arsenal or Arsenal-like because Fergie will refuse to conceed that we are “going through a rebuilding period.”
Posted from
United States

-



Valid point there…
Posted from
United States

-



The media focus is on star players and who’s going where? Why write about building a team – it’s slow and unsensational. I reckon Sir Alex is from the old Scottish school of Jock Stein, Sir Matt, Bill Shankley – he’s nearly 70 and a wiley old dog.
1)It’s about getting the best from a team – everyone has a job to do so that’s why John O’Shea gets a shirt.
2) you always have a youth policy and now you sign them up from Brazil ‘cos you can’t sign them from London because they live too far away if registered in England.
3) anybody who rocks the boat gets a transfer which you mentioned.
You don’t win it with kids – not true. You win it when the President / CEO picks the team – not true unless Real Madrid or Man City prove me wrong next season.
P.S. keep weblogging – always a good read.
Posted from
United Kingdom

-



This isn’t actually a policy at all. It’s just a paper trying to sell some more with a ridiculous statement. Of course it doesn’t make sense to pay anything over £35m for a player who is already either in his prime or past it.
We don’t intend to buy players expecting to sell them on at a profit.
Buy a 19yr old for £30m and get 10yrs out of him (£3m a year). Buy a 27yr old for £30m (Berba) and it will eventually work out at about £6-7m a year. Plus older established players generally demand ridiculously high wages (remember Slave was on £15,000 a week only a few yrs ago?)
He’s spent 6 years with us, bringing his transfer to about £2m a year and his wages would be about £4m a year on average. It makes far more sense.Posted from
United Kingdom

-



The whole original story comes has no quotes so I cant see it being law at United that no over 26 can be signed. Saying that Berbativ hasnt exactly set the worl alight and that is £30million that we will never get back.
Posted from
United Kingdom

-



There was no point keeping Ronaldo against his will for another year. If a player wants to go so desperately, then let them go, especially if you stand to make £68 million profit. Don’t forget that United have a wealth of talent in the youngsters they have. All these guys need is for the door to be left open and they will grab their chances.
Posted from
United States

Comments are closed












