Choose a Manager With A £100m Budget

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, MUFC said:

Much as I've slated Pep. The youngsters he had through the system. Didn't he bring them through the ranks? He was managing the youth side and he had a big part in their development? Fergie brought in the 92 players. But from what I've heard and read. Unlike Pep he never had a full on hands on approach. Most of their development was via Brian Kidd and Eric Harrison. 

I think he was the manager of the Barca B team or the academy or something like that first.

[CaaC (John)+]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think he was the manager of the Barca B team or the academy or something like that first.

[Cicero]

Based on evidence, surely its Wenger? Even considering today's ridiculous inflation, majority of these players are vastly superior than the players going for much more today.

Imagine Bergkamp being available today for only £80m.  

 

Sol Campbell = Free

Kolo Touré (£100,000) = £700,000 today. 

Freddie Ljungberg (£3m) = £30m today. 

Gilberto Silva (£5m) = £31m today. 

Robert Pirès (£6m) = £46m today. 

Patrick Vieira (£4m) = £47m today. 

Laurén (£7m) = £50m today. 

Marc Overmars (£6m) = £80m today. 

Dennis Bergkamp (£7.5m) = £80m today. 

José Antonio Reyes (£14m) = £95m today. 

Thierry Henry (£11m)  = £104m today. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12950536/premier-league-transfers-andriy-shevchenko-and-rio-ferdinand-top-all-time-inflation-adjusted-fees

Edited May 1 by Cicero

[Spike]

On 30/04/2024 at 12:08, Dr. Gonzo said:

If it's £100m in today's money - I'd go with Klopp or Wenger.

Ferguson didn't spend the insane amounts of money that fly around in today's era of football and he deserves a lot of credit for being the United manager and bringing them success in an era when money started flowing into football. But his best sides were not cheaply assembled sides by the standards of the day. But honestly given that he was the one that built United into a financial behemoth with his football, he could probably do a good job as well.

Not Pep or Mourinho for me, though. Chequebook managers that I can't see reaching the heights they want to reach without spending loads of money - other than instances where they inherit a dominant team at the same time as having a bunch of brilliant players coming through the academy (like Pep). They're obviously good managers, but they're the sorts of managers you want with an unlimited budget... not with financial constraints that in today's football is not all that much of a warchest to truly change a side.

Fergie constantly broke transfer fees, mate with inflation of the GPB; Rio Ferdinand’s £33,00,000 fee in 2002 has nearly doubled to £60,000,000, check it out on the bank of England.

[MUFC]

31 minutes ago, Spike said:

Fergie constantly broke transfer fees, mate with inflation of the GPB; Rio Ferdinand’s £33,00,000 fee in 2002 has nearly doubled to £60,000,000, check it out on the bank of England.

A couple of years after we got Rio. Wenger signed Sanchez and Ozil. They were expensive, wasn't Ozil over 40 milllion?

[Dr. Gonzo]

41 minutes ago, Spike said:

Fergie constantly broke transfer fees, mate with inflation of the GPB; Rio Ferdinand’s £33,00,000 fee in 2002 has nearly doubled to £60,000,000, check it out on the bank of England.

Yeah, I did say that he built them into a financial behemoth and that his sides were not cheaply assembled - despite the fees not looking quite as insane as they do now (although I remember the Ferdinand one felt particularly insane at the time, and probably only feels less insane because now £30m doesn't seem that expensive for a football player because we live in a silly era).

But that's why I did say "I'd go with Klopp or Wenger" - even though it's not like the Liverpool and Arsenal sides they managed were skint, they didn't have the same financial backing as their main competitors for silverware. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

13 minutes ago, MUFC said:

A couple of years after we got Rio. Wenger signed Sanchez and Ozil. They were expensive, wasn't Ozil over 40 milllion?

It wasn't really a couple of years after getting Ferdinand though... it was something like 11 or 2 years after that signing they signed Ozil. Manchester United spent a lot of money because they were good and winning things in the era where money started pouring into football, driving it to the mess it is today. Arsenal did increase their spending, but much of that was because they were in direct competition with United and had to spend to keep up. And both of them had Chelsea to worry about and Chelsea were spending money in a way that we hadn't really seen in football other than when Real Madrid went crazy with the galacticos project.

I know some of these managers cross over between different eras of football... but the money in English football from '92 onwards just exponentially explode out of control.

And it really depends on the context of the question as to who you'd want as a manager with £100m. If you're talking about starting a side from basically scratch, making up an XI out of £100m... all of these managers would probably fail lol. If you're talking about one of them taking over an existing side and giving them £100m... I think Klopp and/or Wenger are the standouts with Ferguson for me as a maaaaaaybe. And for Mourinho and Pep... nah, they'll struggle with "just" £100m unless we're talking about a club that's already competitive and with a very strong academy because they're the definition of chequebook managers.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah, I did say that he built them into a financial behemoth and that his sides were not cheaply assembled - despite the fees not looking quite as insane as they do now (although I remember the Ferdinand one felt particularly insane at the time, and probably only feels less insane because now £30m doesn't seem that expensive for a football player because we live in a silly era).

But that's why I did say "I'd go with Klopp or Wenger" - even though it's not like the Liverpool and Arsenal sides they managed were skint, they didn't have the same financial backing as their main competitors for silverware. 

Feel like Klopp had a bit more financial muscle than Wenger. I really feel Wenger's Arsenal only has serious financial backing in the 90s and the towards the end of his tenure. They really clamped down during the Emirates move.

[Spike]

2 hours ago, MUFC said:

A couple of years after we got Rio. Wenger signed Sanchez and Ozil. They were expensive, wasn't Ozil over 40 milllion?

That was over a decade later, mate

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Feel like Klopp had a bit more financial muscle than Wenger. I really feel Wenger's Arsenal only has serious financial backing in the 90s and the towards the end of his tenure. They really clamped down during the Emirates move.

The seasons where Klopp’s spent the most he’s also had to sell to get money in, while trying to compete with clubs that don’t really have to worry about money. That’s a bit like Arsenal while more money was tied up in the stadium loans.

Adjust Wenger’s prices for inflation and Arsenal aren’t the biggest spenders, but also weren’t small spenders. Ozil for example in 2013 (so before Neymar to PSG really brought prices of players to truly fucking mental levels), it was around the end of Wenger’s era - when they were in that constantly rebuilding phase. And that was £40m - within the top 5 most expensive signings made that season.

I’m not saying either manager never spent a lot of money - they both clearly did. But they also sometimes had to work with financial constraints that I don’t think other managers could have done and gotten the same performance.

So for that reason, if you’re picking a manager to do a job with a decent amount of money but not an absolutely obscene amount of money… out of the choices listed, I think it’s Wenger or Klopp.

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The seasons where Klopp’s spent the most he’s also had to sell to get money in, while trying to compete with clubs that don’t really have to worry about money. That’s a bit like Arsenal while more money was tied up in the stadium loans.

Adjust Wenger’s prices for inflation and Arsenal aren’t the biggest spenders, but also weren’t small spenders. Ozil for example in 2013 (so before Neymar to PSG really brought prices of players to truly fucking mental levels), it was around the end of Wenger’s era - when they were in that constantly rebuilding phase. And that was £40m - within the top 5 most expensive signings made that season.

I’m not saying either manager never spent a lot of money - they both clearly did. But they also sometimes had to work with financial constraints that I don’t think other managers could have done and gotten the same performance.

So for that reason, if you’re picking a manager to do a job with a decent amount of money but not an absolutely obscene amount of money… out of the choices listed, I think it’s Wenger or Klopp.

Mate he still spends more, I don’t really care what the impetus was or where the money comes from. We are talking about bargain hunting not flipping a player and then buying Alisson and van Dijk for record numbers. Klopp has had financial advantages over Wenger, that is just a fact not an insult, English fans in-particular  need to get over spending = bad and shit managing 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Mate he still spends more, I don’t really care what the impetus was or where the money comes from. We are talking about bargain hunting not flipping a player and then buying Alisson and van Dijk for record numbers. Klopp has had financial advantages over Wenger, that is just a fact not an insult, English fans in-particular  need to get over spending = bad and shit managing 

I mean if you account for inflation, is that actually true?

Either way I think the right answer is one of those 2.

[MUFC]

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It wasn't really a couple of years after getting Ferdinand though... it was something like 11 or 2 years after that signing they signed Ozil. Manchester United spent a lot of money because they were good and winning things in the era where money started pouring into football, driving it to the mess it is today. Arsenal did increase their spending, but much of that was because they were in direct competition with United and had to spend to keep up. And both of them had Chelsea to worry about and Chelsea were spending money in a way that we hadn't really seen in football other than when Real Madrid went crazy with the galacticos project.

I know some of these managers cross over between different eras of football... but the money in English football from '92 onwards just exponentially explode out of control.

And it really depends on the context of the question as to who you'd want as a manager with £100m. If you're talking about starting a side from basically scratch, making up an XI out of £100m... all of these managers would probably fail lol. If you're talking about one of them taking over an existing side and giving them £100m... I think Klopp and/or Wenger are the standouts with Ferguson for me as a maaaaaaybe. And for Mourinho and Pep... nah, they'll struggle with "just" £100m unless we're talking about a club that's already competitive and with a very strong academy because they're the definition of chequebook managers.

Good point by you and Spike, Ozil and Sanchez came way after. Arsenal did spend big eventually and had to, as you said Utd were competition and Chelsea came with a new rich owner. But another reason is that Wenger had one of the best scouting networks in the 90s. Other teams obviously got onto this and improved their own.

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 hours ago, MUFC said:

Good point by you and Spike, Ozil and Sanchez came way after. Arsenal did spend big eventually and had to, as you said Utd were competition and Chelsea came with a new rich owner. But another reason is that Wenger had one of the best scouting networks in the 90s. Other teams obviously got onto this and improved their own.

You're right though, Ozil and Sanchez at the time were massive signings. Ozil was one of the top 5 most expensive transfers that year - granted Gareth Bale's massive fee to Real Madrid probably made the fee look small though. Wenger was brilliant though with his scouting, he's also a pioneer of bringing modern sports science and nutrition to English football, and his tactics for the most part were excellent - he built strong and entertaining sides before being stuck in constant transition during that stadium loan financing edition. I actually thought it was a bit sad how Arsenal fans got pretty hostile with him in the end - although clearly it had gotten stale.

All the managers you've listed in the original post are all legends imo. I think if you put any of them in charge of a good side, they'll probably win stuff with it. But if they all had to build squads on £100m in 2023, I think there'd be a bit of struggling all around to build a side that's truly competitive.

[Danny]

Also silly to include Klopp in this as Liverpool had a much wider transfer committee in which he was apart of but not the brains. Fergie is a much better manager and strategist then Klopp, probably argue Klopp is the better coach but yeah.