Spend, Spend, Spend perceptions

It's well over forty years ago now and it's hard to sort the fact from the fiction and to analyse the precise roles played by individuals. At the time some seemed larger than life but as time passed seemed rather like pygmies out of their depth. We tend to see Swales as the first and most notorious of the chairmen etc who ruined their club by trying to buy success in one mad rush. He could not, of course, have done it without the support of others', one of whom was Big Mal.

The fees paid for some players were scandalous but, in my opinion, even more scandalous was the way some really top players were literally kicked out of the club for Big Mal's rebuilding. Some of the players brought in were very promising (others not so) but the scale of the transformation never gave them a chance and some of them admitted they simply could not understand what Mal wanted them to do. I got the impression that Mal enjoyed the limelight all the big spending brought and when things didn't go right he would meet criticism by hinting broadly that the critic was too stupid to see that City would soon be playing the same way Cruyff's Ajax had played, only better. This was "vacuum football" and "suction tactics" and if you couldn't discuss them intelligently just shut up and listen! Mal loved the champagne, cigar and big spending limelight. Whether Swales liked his place in the shadows is less sure.

Things were not looking good when Mal's time ran out. In came John Bond. John could spend with the best of them and he and Swales bought two million pound footballers! Unfortunately the more promising young players were allowed to leave. I don't go for the argument that things were just about to go well when Mal was sacked and that if only... but City certainly lacked consistency of policy and the man at the top must shoulder the blame. Our club was crippled financially until, arguably, the advent of Sheikh Mansour because it spent not wisely but far too well. It all shows that spending cannot necessarily buy success but it can certainly buy failure. But isn't it good to know Peter made a fortune when he sold his shares.
 
BillCarlisle said:
The Chairman of Preston at the time we bought Michael Robinson was a very good friend of a Client of mine. He told him that they were initially prepared to accept £250k but thought they'd try to squeeze a little bit more out of Swales & Big Mal. £275k would have a great sale for them but as the negotiations went on he kept squeezing them more & more. He said they just didn't know how to say no and walk away. Eventually Swales & Mal gazumped themselves into paying 3 times the original asking price. Unbelievable. No wonder City got into dire straits.
Click to expand...
I worked at the club at the time and heard both stories from credible sources. I was told that both were scouted under Bookies tenure and valued at a lot less, there may have been more. On the flip side we gave away experienced, international players for peanuts which exacerbated the situation even further.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
It's well over forty years ago now and it's hard to sort the fact from the fiction and to analyse the precise roles played by individuals. At the time some seemed larger than life but as time passed seemed rather like pygmies out of their depth. We tend to see Swales as the first and most notorious of the chairmen etc who ruined their club by trying to buy success in one mad rush. He could not, of course, have done it without the support of others', one of whom was Big Mal.

The fees paid for some players were scandalous but, in my opinion, even more scandalous was the way some really top players were literally kicked out of the club for Big Mal's rebuilding. Some of the players brought in were very promising (others not so) but the scale of the transformation never gave them a chance and some of them admitted they simply could not understand what Mal wanted them to do. I got the impression that Mal enjoyed the limelight all the big spending brought and when things didn't go right he would meet criticism by hinting broadly that the critic was too stupid to see that City would soon be playing the same way Cruyff's Ajax had played, only better. This was "vacuum football" and "suction tactics" and if you couldn't discuss them intelligently just shut up and listen! Mal loved the champagne, cigar and big spending limelight. Whether Swales liked his place in the shadows is less sure.

Things were not looking good when Mal's time ran out. In came John Bond. John could spend with the best of them and he and Swales bought two million pound footballers! Unfortunately the more promising young players were allowed to leave. I don't go for the argument that things were just about to go well when Mal was sacked and that if only... but City certainly lacked consistency of policy and the man at the top must shoulder the blame. Our club was crippled financially until, arguably, the advent of Sheikh Mansour because it spent not wisely but far too well. It all shows that spending cannot necessarily buy success but it can certainly buy failure. But isn't it good to know Peter made a fortune when he sold his shares.
Click to expand...
Whilst there, I heard a story that after a game, Mal was pissed off because we had lost and decided to take it out on Asa Hartford. Allegedly, he told him 'I was told you were fantastic when I came back, but I haven't seen a thing (put your own expletives in where obvious)!'
Now Asa was a lovely Guy but a true Scot, and they had to pull him off 'big' Mal. It was just one of those stories circulating at the time, but he was keen to get rid of him and fortunately we got him straight back after Mal left, I think.
 
From BBC.
So Rags, Chelsea and Arsenal have a higher net soend than us over the last decade:

Manchester United have spent a record £1.19bn more on transfers over the past decade than they have recouped through player sales, according to a new study.

Since 2014 United have spent around £1.67bn on new players, and brought in around £481m, says Swiss-based research institute, CIES
Chelsea are second with a negative net spend of £883m, followed by French side Paris St-Germain with £863m.

Arsenal (£745m) and Manchester City (£732m) complete the top five.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
It's well over forty years ago now and it's hard to sort the fact from the fiction and to analyse the precise roles played by individuals. At the time some seemed larger than life but as time passed seemed rather like pygmies out of their depth. We tend to see Swales as the first and most notorious of the chairmen etc who ruined their club by trying to buy success in one mad rush. He could not, of course, have done it without the support of others', one of whom was Big Mal.

The fees paid for some players were scandalous but, in my opinion, even more scandalous was the way some really top players were literally kicked out of the club for Big Mal's rebuilding. Some of the players brought in were very promising (others not so) but the scale of the transformation never gave them a chance and some of them admitted they simply could not understand what Mal wanted them to do. I got the impression that Mal enjoyed the limelight all the big spending brought and when things didn't go right he would meet criticism by hinting broadly that the critic was too stupid to see that City would soon be playing the same way Cruyff's Ajax had played, only better. This was "vacuum football" and "suction tactics" and if you couldn't discuss them intelligently just shut up and listen! Mal loved the champagne, cigar and big spending limelight. Whether Swales liked his place in the shadows is less sure.

Things were not looking good when Mal's time ran out. In came John Bond. John could spend with the best of them and he and Swales bought two million pound footballers! Unfortunately the more promising young players were allowed to leave. I don't go for the argument that things were just about to go well when Mal was sacked and that if only... but City certainly lacked consistency of policy and the man at the top must shoulder the blame. Our club was crippled financially until, arguably, the advent of Sheikh Mansour because it spent not wisely but far too well. It all shows that spending cannot necessarily buy success but it can certainly buy failure. But isn't it good to know Peter made a fortune when he sold his shares.
Click to expand...
Ian Niven was the man who wanted Allison back and it was that obsession with Big Mal that caused crazy decisions to be made. How to ruin a club!
 
hertsblue said:
From BBC.
So Rags, Chelsea and Arsenal have a higher net soend than us over the last decade:

Manchester United have spent a record £1.19bn more on transfers over the past decade than they have recouped through player sales, according to a new study.

Since 2014 United have spent around £1.67bn on new players, and brought in around £481m, says Swiss-based research institute, CIES
Chelsea are second with a negative net spend of £883m, followed by French side Paris St-Germain with £863m.

Arsenal (£745m) and Manchester City (£732m) complete the top five.
Click to expand...

does this include the undisclosed transfer fees?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.