Ferguson turned down Villa job.

[Martyn Smith]

Interesting aside, I learned yesterday that he is not yet Man U's longest serving manager. He still has a little way to go to surpass Matt Busby's record.

[john e]

he's not that good,

 he's been the manager of the biggest club in the world for the last 25 years,
 they have also been the richest club for most of that time, and he has delivered the european cup twice in that time, thats a pretty dire record in my view.
he would have been sacked years ago at Real Madrid, they wouldnt put up with just domestic succes

when the prem was formed in 92, winning the league with Man Utd was akin to Celtic winning the Scottish league without Rangers, easy,
 they had more money than any body else, pick of any player they wanted,
only when he had a bit of competition ie Blackburn because of the money, Arsenal because of a better manager,and Chelsea because of a billionare did he struggle

his record at Aberdeen was truly great, to break the old firm rule was probably his greatest achievment,
but to claim he has won more than Clough which makes him better is rubbish,

in Cloughs day you only played in the European cup if you were champions,
Clough won it twice with Forest and won it twice,
Fergie has been it it for the last 20 odd years and failed most times misserably,
 he only won it the first time through the most incredible luck in injury time after been played of the park for 90 minuets, the second time because another player slipped on the mud to miss his penalty,
 hardly Barcelona is it ?

he is good, but i agree with aftab,  he's not that good

[dave.woodhall]

And who turned Manchester United INTO the richest club in the world? Don't forget that in Fergie's early days Michael Knighton was going to buy them for £10 million.

The Premier League made it easier for them to dominate but saying Ferguson isn't one of the three or four greatest British managers ever is ridiculous.

[john e]

And who turned Manchester United INTO the richest club in the world? Don't forget that in Fergie's early days Michael Knighton was going to buy them for £10 million.

The Premier League made it easier for them to dominate but saying Ferguson isn't one of the three or four greatest British managers ever is ridiculous.

 in the 70's when they were rubbish, they were still a massive club, in my view still bigger than Liverpool even then,
i agree with you Fergie has build a dynasty there, but was helped as they were the biggest to start with.

then the prem started and they went of into a different stratosphere compared to most other clubs,

i did say he was a good manager though, i dont think he's the best, but certainly in the top 5,

[dave.woodhall]

Nobody gave them the first Premier League - they won it. And they won it without the massive sponsorship deals which came later. When a club can go 26 years without winning the league, then under one manager win it 11 times in 18 years - doesn't that say something?

[Chris Harte]

They won the cup the season before and unless I'm mistaken they also scored first that day.

I was at that game. It was my nineteenth birthday and United did definitely score first that day.

[not3bad]

when the prem was formed in 92, winning the league with Man Utd was akin to Celtic winning the Scottish league without Rangers, easy

Really?  So Liverpool, Arsenal, Leeds and Villa were the equivalent of Dundee United, Falkirk, Partick Thistle and Hibs were they?  News to me.

[john e]

Nobody gave them the first Premier League - they won it. And they won it without the massive sponsorship deals which came later. When a club can go 26 years without winning the league, then under one manager win it 11 times in 18 years - doesn't that say something?

i'm not trying to say he's a rubbish manager, clearly he is not,

 but for most of those 26 years when they couldnt win the league was in the day when clubs were a lot closer in terms competition,
Derby, Forest, Ipswich, Villa, QPR, Watford, Norwich were all clubs which challenged for the league, some as we know became champions
this would never happen today, only 3/4 clubs got any chance now, sometimes even less than that.

the competition was a lot closer, any club with a good manager that built a decent team could have a go,
thats not the case now, you need money and lots of it, and it still doesnt gurantee success, but without it does gurantee not winning it.

Fergie has presided over Man Utd in the decades when they were bigger and richer than anyone else,

i agree he can take credit for building them to even bigger world wide status, but i dont think he would have had the same success if it hadnt been for the size and fianancial backing the club has had for the last 2 decades

he is a good manager, to say different would be churlish, i'm just trying to give a different perspective

[john e]

when the prem was formed in 92, winning the league with Man Utd was akin to Celtic winning the Scottish league without Rangers, easy

Really?  So Liverpool, Arsenal, Leeds and Villa were the equivalent of Dundee United, Falkirk, Partick Thistle and Hibs were they?  News to me.

Celtic were the equals of Rangers, both in terms of size and finance, the rest were also rans

there was no one equal to Man Utd back then, not by a long way, money has changed that for a few, but then thats why they dont win it every year any more

[dave.woodhall]

Do you think part of the reason there's no real competition might be because he destroyed it?

[john e]

Do you think part of the reason there's no real competition might be because he destroyed it?

maybe,
i'm just trotting out arguments i have with my family members to be honest,

i come from up there,
 and even my parents had season tickets at Old Trafford, all my cousins nephews all support them,
 one of my cousins has a couple of children with Boylie, who you will know, and i have met on a good few occasions so you can imagine what i'm surrounded by all the time

when your sitting around the christmas tree and they go on how great Fergie is, you have to have some sort of counter argument, so thats what it is,
as you and others have pointed out, it might not be the greatest argument but its the best i have,

[Billy Walker]

I don't think it is any coincidence that Man Utd started winning the League when Sky and the Premier League came into being. 

As we know, back in the nineties Sky (Murdoch) even tried to buy Man Utd.  The growth of both businesses were tied in together.  When the Premier League kicked off Man Utd would have known that Sky were willing to cover them live more often than not.  This "guarantee" of coverage was a luxury that the likes of Villa did not have.  It enabled Man Utd to plan ahead, grow and spend far more than we ever could on players etc..  On top of that, it gave them the funds to expand Old Trafford and further increase the size of their business. 

Ferguson is clearly a very good manager and an astute judge.  He picked the right club to manage at pretty much the right time...although, as I say, the funding, coverage and commercial opportunities that Sky TV gave his club pretty much gave him a clear run to glory throughout the nineties. 

[myf]

when your sitting around the christmas tree and they go on how great Fergie is, you have to have some sort of counter argument, so thats what it is,
as you and others have pointed out, it might not be the greatest argument but its the best i have,
[/quote]

I don't envy you there mate!  Boylie is the bloke who started the Cantona song right?  I can just imagine the dirty bast4rds singing it around the xmas tree!

[Chico Hamilton III]

Sky owned 10% of man United and sold up to JP McManus.... Hardly fergie's best mate.
They also owned a similar stake in Man City and Newcastle and Leeds.

A bit like when NTL were snapping up chunks of Villa, Rangers, Celtic.

Fergie picked Man United after Big Ron had been sacked and I think the only luck he had was that the board were too nervous too sack another manager so soon asfter Big Ron and that bought Fergie some time to build the squad

[Concrete John]

Fergie, and also Man Utd as a club, were lucky enough to be in the ascendencey as the PL revolutionised the game.  So from one point I can see how you could say he was 'lucky' in the timing of that, even if it does negate the fact he had no advantage in that title victory all the previous Utd managers didn't have that failed to win the league for 26 years.

However, to then stay at the top for 2 decades takes more than just being a decent manager at a super rich club.  If that was the case why did Newcastle never win it despite often out spending Man Utd in the 90s?  Or why do Real madrid not win the CL every year?

Yes, he's had advantages, but those were brought about by the success he built.  Truely a great manager and deserves every accolade he gets.

Even if I do still think he's a tosser!