How does a team buy a trophy?

Sir Alex Ferguson and Manchester United have been accused of "buying" their trophy haul by the majority of oppostion supporters. Can anyone explain what this means? Does it mean that if a team buys a new player/s and then go onto to win a trophy, that they have bought that trophy? so for e.g if Stoke City who have bought new players win the Europa league, can it be said that they bought it? Your thoughts.

Look at Chelsea and Man City as examples

Or even Blackburn in the early 90's

Basically instead of using youth set ups and having the same playing field in regards to spending based on profit generated a club spends a vast amount of money to bring in players to get short term success and hope this leads to long term growth.
Utd could be accused of it in regards to buying the likes of Rooney, Phil Jones, Smalling etc when other clubs brought them upbut in general Utd tend to make stars rather than buy them and they operate on a much lower income to wage basis than City or Chelsea.

Agreed.

Man Utd have had a bit of a jump on the other top teams, in as much as Fergie's dynasty and the sustained success they've had over the last 30 or so years, has allowed them to build a huge worldwide fan base, which has led to large revenues, allowing them to pay for top players, without needing lure a billionaire tycoon.

That said, I'm interested to see where this Glazer takeover will lead. They've apparently now got United in a whole heap of debt (£300m?), which could pull the financial rug from under the club, if they decide to bail out.


Anyway, until the Glazer takeover, this put Man Utd in stark contrast to clubs like Chelsea and Man City (and Blackburn when they won the title), where a rich investor pumped millions in, enabling the clubs to snap up the best players available.

Well Utd have always had a healthy support,even when they were relegated, and this during the period of Liverpool domination. They have never really been short of cash.
But in relation to buying trophies, is it about how much money is spent? For eg Stoke reportedly spent around 20m this season so far, so if they go on to win a trophy. Can it not be said they bought that trophy? and would not this apply to all clubs who spend money?

Any team that wins a trophy could be accused of buying it (granted some more then others ) as all teams buy players , i think the difference with Man Utd is they tend to bring their buys on more ,get the best out them ,turn them into better players on the whole ...yes there are exceptions that haven't worked out but Utd have a great record of buying good players and making them even better .

The only perfectly reasonble claim for saying anyone has 'bought' a trophy is whether that side spent a lot of money renovating the squad and only on the back of the sweeping changes were able to compete.

For Man Utd I don't think it applies, as theirs was a reasonably gradual rise and one without bringing in a new first 11. Whereas somewhere like City, where the first team squad was completely replaced (almost) at huge cost could reasonably expect to be accused of that!

Blackburn bought the title.
Chelsea have bought the title.
Man City are trying to.

To say Man U have is harsh.
Yes they have never baulked at spending big for required players....but they have always matched those signings by bringing through youth players.

None of the above have.

Liverpool are trying to buy it but spending over £100m on Carroll, Henderson, Downing and Adam, have got very little hope.

GillesSimon wrote:Liverpool are trying to buy it but spending over £100m on Carroll, Henderson, Downing and Adam, have got very little hope.

What a ridiculous and ignorant comment. What are Liverpool supposed to do...stand still and stick with an inferior squad? You have to speculate to accumulate I'm afraid.

Again people forget that football transfer inflation is way above normal inflation.
Under Fergie, Utd broke transfer records on a regular basis, whether it was Pallister going for £2.3m in 89, Keane for £3.75m in 93, Cole for £7m in 95, Veron £28m in 01, Rio £30+ in 02 or just the most expensive players in their respective positions like Barthez and there are many more names I could add to the list too.

Too many don't seem to realise that where you could buy a whole team that could challenge for honours in the early 90s for around £20m, a team of similar standards nowadays will cost upwards of £400m, add to that the simple facts that we have more and better foreign players now and it's much more of a squad game too and you'd probably have to spend well over £600m to buy a small squad capable of challenging for all honours from scratch.

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Any team that wins a trophy could be accused of buying it (granted some more then others ) as all teams buy players ,i think the difference with Man Utd is they tend to bring their buys on more ,get the best out them ,turn them into better players on the whole ...yes there are exceptions that haven't worked out but Utd have a great record of buying good players and making them even better .

This is a very fair point. It would probably be also fair to say that even Arsenal have tried to do this but as yet have not been as successful as Utd.

ReallyReal wrote:Again people forget that football transfer inflation is way above normal inflation.
Under Fergie, Utd broke transfer records on a regular basis, whether it was Pallister going for £2.3m in 89, Keane for £3.75m in 93, Cole for £7m in 95, Veron £28m in 01, Rio £30+ in 02 or just the most expensive players in their respective positions like Barthez and there are many more names I could add to the list too.

Fair point but these transfers span over 20 years and SAF did not buy a whole team full of these top expensive players. He would buy some stars just like any other club as he saw fit and there was usually room for some youngsters to come through at that time. As already said in general SAF makes "stars" and helps established stars to be even better. this is probably the difference with the likes of City and Chelsea today where youngsters in general have no chance due to the quest for instant success.

ReallyReal wrote:Too many don't seem to realise that where you could buy a whole team that could challenge for honours in the early 90s for around £20m, a team of similar standards nowadays will cost upwards of £400m, add to that the simple facts that we have more and better foreign players now and it's much more of a squad game too and you'd probably have to spend well over £600m to buy a small squad capable of challenging for all honours from scratch

This is true but it largely depends on the club and manager's philisophy. For eg what would you say Mancini's footballing philosophy is? It was just the other day that he was reported as saying he needs more players! Where would those players come from? they youth system? No it's all about BUYING established stars which is probably why it is said of them that they are trying to buy trophies. However as King Kenny7 says it can be said that any team who spends money(no matter the amount) and wins a trophy has bought it. Liverpool bought players in their successful days, did they buy their trophies? What of Barcelona? Some are saying they are the best clubside ever seen! Can it not be said that they have bought their trophies too?

Every team wants to win a trophy but what probably many fans don't like is a team who buys a whole team so as to win a trophy immediately because they have the money to do so. Problem is once the money goes so does the team's success in a lot of cases.

"Again people forget that football transfer inflation is way above normal inflation.
Under Fergie, Utd broke transfer records on a regular basis, whether it was Pallister going for £2.3m in 89, Keane for £3.75m in 93, Cole for £7m in 95, Veron £28m in 01, Rio £30+ in 02 or just the most expensive players in their respective positions like Barthez and there are many more names I could add to the list too."

Yes they have always been prepared to spend money.....however as has also been mentiond those big signings were balanced out by bring youth players through...ie..

Whilst Pallister cost a record transfer at the time....they were also bringing therough Lee Sharpe etc who at the time was big star...they also had small money signings like Denis Irwin etc.

Whilst Keane was being bought...they were preparing to bring through the Nevilles, Scholes, Beckham....Giggs had already come through etc.

Even now...Welbeck, Cleverley, (Fabio and his brother are coming on nicely) etc are coming through which balances what they paid for this summers big signings....

Who have Chelsea brought through apart from Terry? Who have City got in their team from the Youth ranks?

I won't argue that Utd (or at least Fergies teams) always balance youth with purchases, nor would I argue that Fergie has just about the best eye where purchases are concerned, those two points are undoubted.

I was simply making the point that eyeryone buys and Utd have spent the most money more times than anyone, but most of all, my point was about the inflation of transfer fees over the last couple of decades, attempting to buy trophies would have cost a pittance (relatively speaking) not too long ago whereas to do so now will cost a kings ransom.

I'd say by buying star players over and above what any other team can hope to match and buying the best players in the league.

ReallyReal wrote:I was simply making the point that eyeryone buys and Utd have spent the most money more times than anyone

What time period are you talking about?

Every team has bought players from outside the club...

My opinion when someone say's "buying a trophy" he means..

I'm as jealous as hell no one thinks my club is worthy of investment...

Boo hoo..

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:I was simply making the point that eyeryone buys and Utd have spent the most money more times than anyone

What time period are you talking about?

All time with maybe the first few decades excluded, I suppose I could have added a comma between money and more, but the sentence still makes sense, to put it another way though, Utd have broken more transfer records than anyone, or to put it an even fairer way, under Fergie, Utd have broken more transfer records than every other team put together has done, since Fergie joined Utd .