Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Benitez : United only successful because of money

  • 13-10-2011 4:19pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭


    What is this guy smoking?

    http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/968870/rafa-benitez:-sir-alex-ferguson%27s-man-utd-success-down-to-money?cc=5739
    Former Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez has played down Sir Alex Ferguson's role in the success of Manchester United, insisting that money has been the decisive factor in the club's triumphs and not the Scot's management skills.


    PA Photos
    Rafa Benitez finished behind Ferguson's Man Utd in all of his six seasons at Liverpool
    • Preview: Liverpool v Man Utd
    • Hernandez pens new deal - agent
    • United keen on Krasic - agent

    Benitez and Ferguson were Premier League rivals for six seasons, with the pair's relationship in that time somewhat tempestuous.

    And ahead of this weekend's clash between United and Liverpool, Benitez has opened up old wounds by questioning Ferguson's influence on the Red Devils' success in an interview with BBC Radio Merseyside.

    After it was put to him that Ferguson's personality has been critical in driving United forward, Benitez responded: "No, I think it's the money they were spending. If you analyse the transfer record and the history ... Rooney, or Ferdinand, for example ... £30 million for a young player or a centre back.

    "Every year they [United] are very well-off. It's not just because of the interviews or the press conferences; it's because they had money."

    Benitez and Ferguson's troubled relationship came to a head during the 2008-09 season, when Liverpool ran United close before the Red Devils pipped them to the Premier League title.

    During that campaign, Benitez delivered a pre-prepared critique of his opposite number, listing a series of "facts" that suggested Ferguson influenced both the Premier Leage fixture list and choice of match officials.

    But Benitez has once again dismissed the notion that the infamous "facts" press conference was responsible for Liverpool's failure to beat United in the title race.

    "To be fair, I didn't like it when the press was talking about mind games because I was just focused on my team, and the things I had to do for the team," Benitez said.

    "If you say something in a press conference I can guarantee you that it has no impact on another manager. It can happen perhaps one in one hundred times, but the press likes to talk about mind games, but what they don't realize is that you cannot win mind games if you have a bad team.

    "You can be the best in the press conference, but after, if you have a bad team you will lose. It's easy to talk about mind games when he [Ferguson] has a good team and he has won, and that was the case."


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Rafa trolls footy forums all over the world in one fell swoop. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,485 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Benitez is a joke...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭bamboozling


    He does have a point. United came to the fore at the perfect time in the early 90's and became incredibly rich while other clubs were left to feed off scraps.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭Nalz


    why Des, why! :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,677 ✭✭✭staker


    There are some things money can buy,for everything else there's SAF.

    Benitez spouting pure BS again.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Trilla wrote: »
    why Des, why! :)

    To get it out of the two superthreads and the match thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,085 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    I reckon Rafa probably spent more than Ferguson during those six years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    I reckon Rafa probably spent more than Ferguson during those six years.

    are you talking about net spend?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/1992-to-2011.html

    Lets not let facts ruin a good rant, where are Liverpool in relation to United in this list?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Draupnir


    Andersred has spent most of the day working this out and tweeting about it, in the time Rafa was at Liverpool, Sir Alex outspent him by £5 million if you add all wages to net transfers.

    Sissoko cost Liverpool £5.6 million. Does that mean that another Sissoko purchase and Benitez would still be at Liverpool winning all around him?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,633 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    Draupnir wrote: »
    Andersred has spent most of the day working this out and tweeting about it, in the time Rafa was at Liverpool, Sir Alex outspent him by £5 million if you add all wages to net transfers.

    Sissoko cost Liverpool £5.6 million. Does that mean that another Sissoko purchase and Benitez would still be at Liverpool winning all around him?

    Would be interesting to see what he spent compared to Wenger.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭bamboozling


    I reckon Rafa probably spent more than Ferguson during those six years.

    Net spend wise, Benitez spent £63 million compared to the £40 spent by Ferguson. However I would temper this by saying that United's figures are skewed entirely due to the £80 million recieved for Cristiano Ronaldo.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,113 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Draupnir wrote: »
    Andersred has spent most of the day working this out and tweeting about it, in the time Rafa was at Liverpool, Sir Alex outspent him by £5 million if you add all wages to net transfers.

    Sissoko cost Liverpool £5.6 million. Does that mean that another Sissoko purchase and Benitez would still be at Liverpool winning all around him?

    Well it's a lot easier to succeed win you are spending all this money when you already have a great side to begin with, it's not as easy to say they should both be winning the same, rafa had to rebuild, ferguson didn't. Plus the 80 million for Ronaldo throws all the figures out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Draupnir


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Well it's a lot easier to succeed win you are spending all this money when you already have a great side to begin with, it's not as easy to say they should both be winning the same, rafa had to rebuild, ferguson didn't. Plus the 80 million for Ronaldo throws all the figures out.

    I might aswell just quote Andersred on this one:

    "Even add back Ronaldo sale proceeds and Benitez spent £23m more..."

    Here's the comparison going back to the year 2000:

    #LFC spent £403m, recouped £207m, net £195m. #MUFC spent £388m, recouped £225m, net £163m.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,383 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Would be interesting to see what he spent compared to Wenger.

    who rafa or ferguson?? when rafa took over liverpool they had finished some 40 points behind wengers arsenal previous season, they ended up finishing ahead of arsenal in 4 out of the next 6 seasons


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Draupnir


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Well it's a lot easier to succeed win you are spending all this money when you already have a great side to begin with

    Agreed, but based on that you'd have thought logic you'd have thought Graeme Souness couldn't have made such a balls of Liverpool!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,241 ✭✭✭Cypher_sounds


    Rafa keeping himself sweet for a liverpool return.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,113 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Draupnir wrote: »
    Agreed, but based on that you'd have thought logic you'd have thought Graeme Souness couldn't have made such a balls of Liverpool!

    I don't get you, what's souness got to do with this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Draupnir


    niallo27 wrote: »
    I don't get you, what's souness got to do with this.

    Ah we won't drag this way off topic, just that Souness took over a pretty successful and decent Liverpool side and spent a good bit of cash. He didn't find it too easy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    Draupnir wrote: »
    I might aswell just quote Andersred on this one:

    "Even add back Ronaldo sale proceeds and Benitez spent £23m more..."

    Here's the comparison going back to the year 2000:

    #LFC spent £403m, recouped £207m, net £195m. #MUFC spent £388m, recouped £225m, net £163m.

    Im not particularly interested in the subject but im having trouble with these.

    1. Ferguson outspent Benitez by 5mil during Benitez time in charge.
    2. Add Ronaldo to the equation and Benitez spent 23mil more.

    Computer says no.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    He is obsessed with United.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Draupnir


    daithijjj wrote: »
    Im not particularly interested in the subject but im having trouble with these.

    1. Ferguson outspent Benitez by 5mil during Benitez time in charge.
    2. Add Ronaldo to the equation and Benitez spent 23mil more.

    Computer says no.

    Statistic one takes all wages into consideration.

    Statistic two is based on net transfers only.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    Le King wrote: »
    He is obsessed with United.

    ....
    ...After it was put to him that Ferguson's personality has been critical in driving United forward, Benitez responded...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,640 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Well it's a lot easier to succeed win you are spending all this money when you already have a great side to begin with, it's not as easy to say they should both be winning the same, rafa had to rebuild, ferguson didn't. Plus the 80 million for Ronaldo throws all the figures out.

    Huh? When Ferguson took over from Atkinson, United were second bottom of the First Division and he took over a club with major internal problems, ie players battling alcohol problems (McGrath, Whiteside being particular headaches) and United were a club that needed to boost its youth policy. Rafa meanwhile took over from Houllier who had won Liverpool several cups and who were a Champions League side. How can you say Rafa had to rebuild and Ferguson didn't? Ferguson had the tougher start.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    All this splitting hairs over net spend is pointless. United are successful because Alex Ferguson did an amazing job and a series of events came together at the same time that made them a powerhouse. However, whilst they certainly helped United stay successful, those events did not make United successful. Football is full of examples of team with money that did not win quarter of what United have won under Ferguson.

    Anybody belittling what is possibly the most amazing 25 years of management in football history with snide lines about them only being successful due to wealth, is being ridiculous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,440 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Title of article doesn't actually match what was said shocker.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,079 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    Huh? When Ferguson took over from Atkinson, United were second bottom of the First Division and he took over a club with major internal problems, ie players battling alcohol problems (McGrath, Whiteside being particular headaches) and United were a club that needed to boost its youth policy. Rafa meanwhile took over from Houllier who had won Liverpool several cups and who were a Champions League side. How can you say Rafa had to rebuild and Ferguson didn't? Ferguson had the tougher start.
    Ferguson didn't have to rebuild in the period of time that everyone is referring to and quoting figures from.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,016 ✭✭✭Hulk Hands


    He does have a point. United came to the fore at the perfect time in the early 90's and became incredibly rich while other clubs were left to feed off scraps.

    How does that work out when United's net spend is less than Chelsea's, City's and Liverpool's since the PL began.

    Regardless of Benitez record, what the argument here is saying is that United have been successful because of money. Well, they have spent less than most rivals and still completely dominated, so that's bo**ox


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,755 ✭✭✭✭Liam O


    Net spend wise, Benitez spent £63 million compared to the £40 spent by Ferguson. However I would temper this by saying that United's figures are skewed entirely due to the £80 million recieved for Cristiano Ronaldo.
    what about the money Liverpool got for Alonso? Should that be taken out of the equation too? United made a large investment on a young player, turned him into the best player in the world and sold him at his market value.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,079 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    How does that work out when United's net spend is less than Chelsea's, City's and Liverpool's since the PL began.

    Regardless of Benitez record, what the argument here is saying is that United have been successful because of money. Well, they have spent less than most rivals and still completely dominated, so that's bo**ox
    Not really an accurate measure, 7 million back when United were the big spenders, is completely different to what 7 million is in the transfer market now.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    Sounds like a very disturbed man..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    Draupnir wrote: »
    Statistic one takes all wages into consideration.

    Statistic two is based on net transfers only.

    Ok, cheers for clarification. Its all pretty much bollox anyway these debates because there is huge money spent on sign on fees that are not generally accurate or even used.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,485 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    He's just jealous..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 610 ✭✭✭TerryTibbs!


    Every successful club is successful because of money.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Average-Ro


    Net spend wise, Benitez spent £63 million compared to the £40 spent by Ferguson. However I would temper this by saying that United's figures are skewed entirely due to the £80 million recieved for Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I'm sick and tired of people saying that Ronaldo's transfer fee skews the figures. Why does it? We bought a talented young player, nurtured him and turned him into a world class player; then sold him on for a major profit.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,016 ✭✭✭Hulk Hands


    CSF wrote: »
    Not really an accurate measure, 7 million back when United were the big spenders, is completely different to what 7 million is in the transfer market now.


    It wasn't as if Liverpool weren't spending back in those days either.

    United were outspent by Blackburn in the mid-90's, Chelsea in the 00's, Liverpool in the Benitez era and City in recent years. Yet as of yet they have seen off all rivals and kept up the dominance.

    The only club who can even attempt to use the money argument is Arsenal


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭bamboozling


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    How does that work out when United's net spend is less than Chelsea's, City's and Liverpool's since the PL began.

    Regardless of Benitez record, what the argument here is saying is that United have been successful because of money. Well, they have spent less than most rivals and still completely dominated, so that's bo**ox

    City and Chelsea spent very inorganically as they were taken over by billionaires. Here we should be comparing United's spend to Arsenal and Liverpool, both clubs which have been similar and spent organically.
    Liam O wrote: »
    what about the money Liverpool got for Alonso? Should that be taken out of the equation too? United made a large investment on a young player, turned him into the best player in the world and sold him at his market value.

    I'm not refuting that. I'm was putting in a caveat whereby one player skewed the United figures massively. Surely that isn't hard to comprehend?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,755 ✭✭✭✭Liam O


    CSF wrote: »
    Not really an accurate measure, 7 million back when United were the big spenders, is completely different to what 7 million is in the transfer market now.
    Also the amount of money spent on Nemanja Vidic and Andrea Dossena. What's your point?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,633 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    who rafa or ferguson?? when rafa took over liverpool they had finished some 40 points behind wengers arsenal previous season, they ended up finishing ahead of arsenal in 4 out of the next 6 seasons

    "4 out of the next 6 seasons" how many was Benitz in charge of?

    Which season did they finish "some 40 points behind" Arsenal?

    You're also talking about a period where Wenger's spending went positive to pay for the stadium hardly surprising he closed the gap with all the money Benitez spent.

    When Wenger spent money he was successful, in his first full season in charge he won the League.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,113 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Huh? When Ferguson took over from Atkinson, United were second bottom of the First Division and he took over a club with major internal problems, ie players battling alcohol problems (McGrath, Whiteside being particular headaches) and United were a club that needed to boost its youth policy. Rafa meanwhile took over from Houllier who had won Liverpool several cups and who were a Champions League side. How can you say Rafa had to rebuild and Ferguson didn't? Ferguson had the tougher start.

    Well i was comparing the 6 years they were both in management together in response to the transfer spend over the same period stating that utd had a much better side when rafa took over compared to liverpool, so both clubs spending equal amount of cash it was hard for rafa to bridge the gap, if you wanna compare their first 6 years at respective club we can, we both know Ferguson would be out of a job if he had the same record these days.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,640 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    CSF wrote: »
    Ferguson didn't have to rebuild in the period of time that everyone is referring to and quoting figures from.

    I know that but he had done his rebuilding phase already so it's a tad unfair to make out that Ferguson had everything rosy in Rafa's time as some seem to be implying. There was a lot of pain and even the danger of being sacked to overcome before Ferguson had turned United into a force and the 'he's successful because of money' argument therefore needs to be put into a wider context.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    Im far from Rafa's biggest fan but it is still a fact that LFC spent a grand total of nothing, zero, between summer 08 and Jan 11. Thats half the mans time in the job.

    Anyway...........moving on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    Talk about people missing the point.

    Talking about Ronaldo, Alonso etc is missing the point.

    Utd have been so successful for a number of reasons, 1 of which is that they spent mad money in pursuit of their first league title in a long time, when they finally put together a title winning squad it coincided with the explosion of the PL & as such they were best placed to exploit the new riches at the leagues disposal.

    In addition to this, obviously they have an amazing manager & produced some wonderful home grown players. Everyone knows that including Rafa & he hasn't really said anything different to that. Publication is simply trying to create as much out of his quotes as possible & as Llyod pointed out, the headline doesn't match the content.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Didn't City spend more than Fergie in the first ten years of his tenure at United or someting mad like that?

    Benitez's barely concealed dislike of Fergie is highly amusing. He was never the same after his little rant, while Fergie continues to excel.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭bamboozling


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Didn't City spend more than Fergie in the first ten years of his tenure at United or someting mad like that?

    Benitez's barely concealed dislike of Fergie is highly amusing. He was never the same after his little rant, while Fergie continues to excel.

    Never the same, we beat Madrid 4-0, yereselves 4-1 at Trafford after that 'rant' and went on a fantastic run. The myth that Liverpool were a poorer team after that 'rant' is grade 5 bullshít.

    The ironic thing is people rarely dispute the contents of his facts merely that he said it in the first place. Tells you all you need to know really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,755 ✭✭✭✭Liam O


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Well i was comparing the 6 years they were both in management together in response to the transfer spend over the same period stating that utd had a much better side when rafa took over compared to liverpool, so both clubs spending equal amount of cash it was hard for rafa to bridge the gap, if you wanna compare their first 6 years at respective club we can, we both know Ferguson would be out of a job if he had the same record these days.
    No, spending similar amounts of money gives them the exact same playing field. It's their job to manage the talent. Fergie spent £30m on Rooney. Benitez spent £35m on Babel, Morientes and Robbie Keane over a couple of years as players bought to address the striker problem. Which was the better use of money? They could have spent the £30m on a top player to nail down the position. The amount of useless players and wastes of wages Benitez bought is astounding, I think he averaged 11 players a year bought.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,016 ✭✭✭Hulk Hands


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    Talk about people missing the point.

    Talking about Ronaldo, Alonso etc is missing the point.

    Utd have been so successful for a number of reasons, 1 of which is that they spent mad money in pursuit of their first league title in a long time, when they finally put together a title winning squad it coincided with the explosion of the PL & as such they were best placed to exploit the new riches at the leagues disposal.

    In addition to this, obviously they have an amazing manager & produced some wonderful home grown players. Everyone knows that including Rafa & he hasn't really said anything different to that. Publication is simply trying to create as much out of his quotes as possible & as Llyod pointed out, the headline doesn't match the content.

    Where was this mad money spent then? A million or so on Pallister and the same on Cantona? Most of which was brought in from the sale of players like Whiteside? Even back then United had a rival outspending them, namely Aston Villa


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,485 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Every successful club is successful because of money.

    and having good mangers, youth setups, good commercial side and having good squad of players that actually want to play for club and actually even players who actually will come off bench and not sulk;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15



    The ironic thing is people rarely dispute the contents of his facts merely that he said it in the first place. Tells you all you need to know really.

    Yes, that it's such shíte that it's not even worth disputing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Didn't City spend more than Fergie in the first ten years of his tenure at United or someting mad like that?

    Benitez's barely concealed dislike of Fergie is highly amusing. He was never the same after his little rant, while Fergie continues to excel.
    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    Where was this mad money spent then? A million or so on Pallister and the same on Cantona? Most of which was brought in from the sale of players like Whiteside? Even back then United had a rival outspending them, namely Aston Villa

    Utd outspent everyone in pursuit of their first PL title, smashing all sorts of transfer records quite consistently. And even then it took 7 years.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement