Reply to: Scolari sacked.....

[Doggy Styles]

I'm not doubting his ability to buy/sell players and make a profit, my point was that he has bought players for big fees.

Anelka was a great bit of profit, as was overmars and petit.

My original point was that Wenger, good though he is as a coach, cannot win the league without a lot of money.

He needs replacement players now, the money has dried up, and we can see the results.

[FiveTimes]

Anelka 500K, sold to Real Madrid for 23M
Cesc Fabregas undisclosed fee rumoured to be around 2M, currently worth anything up to 45M

Wenger's transfer record at Arsenal was, for many years, astonishing. He was actually running a profit for some time I believe. So on balance he has probably spent far less than many other Premier League clubs (although wage bills are another matter.)

I'm not doubting his ability to buy/sell players and make a profit, my point was that he has bought players for big fees.

Anelka was a great bit of profit, as was overmars and petit.

[minestrone]

I cannot argue with Ferguson's talent, nor would I want to. But:

1. That was 25 years ago, before the cost of league success rose exponentially with TV and Champions League money.

2. Aberdeen were not the paupers they might be now - the oil industry was at its peak in that area then.

3. It was not the Champions League. The cup winners cup was won by many middling clubs.

Money does not guarantee success, but it is next to impossible without it. To win the Premiership without a lot of money these days would take a lot of talent and lot of luck, not least to hang on to your best players.

St Mirren were right to sack him.

There is a school of though that Fergie inherited a good Aberdeen team at the right time from Billy McNeil.

[swamp]

At the time Wenger signed Wiltord for best part of £12m - quite a lot.
Same for Henry.

Van Bronckhusrt 8M
Richard Wright 6M

Jerrers 8M
Reyes 12M

Anelka 500K, sold to Real Madrid for 23M
Cesc Fabregas undisclosed fee rumoured to be around 2M, currently worth anything up to 45M

Wenger's transfer record at Arsenal was, for many years, astonishing. He was actually running a profit for some time I believe. So on balance he has probably spent far less than many other Premier League clubs (although wage bills are another matter.)

[Doggy Styles]

At the time Wenger signed Wiltord for best part of £12m - quite a lot.
Same for Henry.

Van Bronckhusrt 8M
Richard Wright 6M

Jerrers 8M
Reyes 12M

I saw Wiltord playing for Rennes in France at the start of the season. He was poor.

[Rookie]

At the time Wenger signed Wiltord for best part of £12m - quite a lot.
Same for Henry.

Van Bronckhusrt 8M
Richard Wright 6M

Jerrers 8M
Reyes 12M

Henry turned out to be an inspired buy though. What a class act for Arsenal. As for the others, I agree, probably not the best investments they'll ever make.

Fergie has been guilty of buying some real stinkers in the past......Veron (ouch), Kleberson, Bellion to name a few.

I think both Wenger and Fergie are both great (if not 2 of the best) managers at the moment. Just goes to show that even they can get it wrong sometimes.

[FiveTimes]

Hmm. As an Arsenal fan I want to argue with this but... Arsenal have assembled their winning teams for a fraction of the cost of other sides. Wenger has never had big money; he just didn't have quite enough money last season to win the title.

At the time Wenger signed Wiltord for best part of £12m - quite a lot.
Same for Henry.

Van Bronckhusrt 8M
Richard Wright 6M

Jerrers 8M
Reyes 12M

[Doggy Styles]

How about his succesful Aberdeen team. Europeans cup winners cup and super cup, 3 scottish titles. Cant really argue with that.

I cannot argue with Ferguson's talent, nor would I want to. But:

1. That was 25 years ago, before the cost of league success rose exponentially with TV and Champions League money.

2. Aberdeen were not the paupers they might be now - the oil industry was at its peak in that area then.

3. It was not the Champions League. The cup winners cup was won by many middling clubs.

Money does not guarantee success, but it is next to impossible without it. To win the Premiership without a lot of money these days would take a lot of talent and lot of luck, not least to hang on to your best players.

[Doggy Styles]

I'm not an Arsenal fun but I really rate Wenger as a manager. If he had been given the funds that Man Utd and Chelsea had to play with it would have been very interesting.

Exactly my point

[Rookie]

Hmm. As an Arsenal fan I want to argue with this but... Arsenal have assembled their winning teams for a fraction of the cost of other sides. Wenger has never had big money; he just didn't have quite enough money last season to win the title.

I'm not an Arsenal fun but I really rate Wenger as a manager. If he had been given the funds that Man Utd and Chelsea had to play with it would have been very interesting.

[Pickle2]

* For all Ferguson's talents, Man Utd's successful team is as expensively assembled as Chelsea's.

How about his succesful Aberdeen team. Europeans cup winners cup and super cup, 3 scottish titles. Cant really argue with that.

[swamp]

[QUOTE=Doggy Styles;768102* For all Wenger's talents, his team stopped winning things when the money dried up.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. As an Arsenal fan I want to argue with this but... Arsenal have assembled their winning teams for a fraction of the cost of other sides. Wenger has never had big money; he just didn't have quite enough money last season to win the title.

[Doggy Styles]

All the money in the world would not have achieved that success without Mourinho.

Or Blackburn's success without Dalglish.

That just demonstrates that, given a good club manager, money most definitely DOES buy success. Don't forget that:

* For all Ferguson's talents, Man Utd's successful team is as expensively assembled as Chelsea's.

* For all Wenger's talents, his team stopped winning things when the money dried up.

[Cyberman]

Money bought Chelsea two league championships, the FA Cup and two league cups in three years under Mourinho.

Chelsea's BIG mistake was their hubris after that, when they squeezed out Mourinho because his successful football wasn't exciting enough. Evolution takes time. It took Ferguson 7 years to win the championship at United, despite them being the richest club at the time.

Chelsea are behaving like cheap day-traders.

All the money in the world would not have achieved that success without Mourinho.

[swamp]

Chelsea are just a Tottenham with money.

Abramovich has sacked four managers to date. Each manager has their own idea how to run a club so they'll want to change players, coaches and back room staff again. After an initial boost, any new manager will run into the same problems over control and the demand for instant results.