how much did the mancs have to do with our demise?

[growler]

Much has been said about this so called perch. From what I understand, it was more about being the dominant team in the land, than any other record based thing. From that perspective, we came off the 'perch' a while ago, in fact, I would say starting from 1990.

 

Whilst I give credit to the mancs for their success, you would have to say that our demise had already started, if not already ther, and they were gifted the lead. I mean, look at the challenges. For many of the titles, there was not really a challenge at all, and we were never really in the picture. This is the first season, we can HONESTLY say and MEAN next season.

 

Back to point, how much have the mancs had to do with our demise and how much was just poor leadership? For example, if we had kenyon instead of parry, would the commercial success have meant we recovered quicker?

 

Its more interesting because this is the first time I can remember the two powerhouses of England going genuinely head to head for the title 2009/10 that is. the mancs never had to face it did they?

 

Comparitively didn't we often have serious challenges from a stong everton for example?

[Wilbur]

Much has been said about this so called perch. From what I understand, it was more about being the dominant team in the land, than any other record based thing. From that perspective, we came off the 'perch' a while ago, in fact, I would say starting from 1990.

 

Whilst I give credit to the mancs for their success, you would have to say that our demise had already started, if not already ther, and they were gifted the lead. I mean, look at the challenges. For many of the titles, there was not really a challenge at all, and we were never really in the picture. This is the first season, we can HONESTLY say and MEAN next season.

 

Back to point, how much have the mancs had to do with our demise and how much was just poor leadership? For example, if we had kenyon instead of parry, would the commercial success have meant we recovered quicker?

 

Its more interesting because this is the first time I can remember the two powerhouses of England going genuinely head to head for the title 2009/10 that is. the mancs never had to face it did they?

 

Comparitively didn't we often have serious challenges from a stong everton for example?

 

Through the 1970's and 1980's, the First Division had strong competition. Many teams could win the title every year, and the rivalries were powerful. Villa and Forest won the European Cup. Everton, Arsenal, Leeds, Derby, Forest all won the league. Once the money from the Premier Leageu began to separate the men from the boys in terms of buying power, the number of teams capable of winning the league dwindled.

 

If you go back to the 1980's, King Kenny assembled an incredible squad to replace Rush when he went to Italy. However, he had trouble figuring out how to continue the trend, and his purchases after 1988-89 weren't very good, and some of the sales at that time and later were bad decisions in retrospect. Souey then dropped the ball altogether. Thus it wasn't necessarily that Ferguson knocked Liverpool "off their perch" per se, as much as Liverpool slid off by themselves.

 

Summary: The "players out" weren't being replaced by equally good "players in", so the Liverpool standards dropped off sharply. Simultaneously, the competition for the top spot withered.

 

Examples: Peter Beardsely-type players go. Jimmy Carter-type players come in. Injuries slow down John Barnes. Don Hutchison comes in.

 

Note: Jimmy and Don are nice guys, they just weren't Peter or John.

[NWR]

Graeme Souness has always taken the blame for the so-called Liverpool demise, but I always thought it started under Dalglish. I cant really put my finger on why that was because being a United fan I didnt know the ins and outs of your club. I just felt that Liverpool had always had a way of doing things. They seemed to buy just a couple of players in the summer and bring a couple through the ranks. This way had worked for them for years. Dalglish took over and bought loads of players. Dont get me wrong, that side was the best Liverpool side I have ever seen and I was going to United v Liverpool matches from the Keegan period onwards,( I was at Wembley for the Charity Shield in 77, Dalglishes first game) but it was like the players were mercenaries rather than the Liverpool through and through players that had won championship after championship for almost two decades previous. Up until Dalglish took over, City and Leeds were our main rivals, the teams we hated most and wanted to beat. But something about Kenny and the way he ran the club changed all that and Liverpool became more and more the enemy. Ha ha, that got a lot worse when Fergie took over at OT.

Anyway I cant quite put my finger on it, but at the time we (United fans) felt the change at Anfield during the Dalglish era.

Edited May 24, 2009 by NWR

[John am Rhein]

If anyone knocked us off our 'f*cking' perch it was George Graham.

 

I think the main factor in our fall from competitiveness was being too compliant with the then rule that only 3 non-English players could be used in European matches. Thus we sold the likes of Staunton and held on to the likes of Burrows, for example.

[cymrococh]

I think it comes down to management, Ferguson is obviously the main difference.

 

We gave him something to aim at, and they had the patience and resources to give him what he needed.

[Earl Hafler]

Graeme Souness has always taken the blame for the so-called Liverpool demise, but I always thought it started under Dalglish. I cant really put my finger on why that was because being a United fan I didnt know the ins and outs of your club. I just felt that Liverpool had always had a way of doing things. They seemed to buy just a couple of players in the summer and bring a couple through the ranks. This way had worked for them for years. Dalglish took over and bought loads of players. Dont get me wrong, that side was the best Liverpool side I have ever seen and I was going to United v Liverpool matches from the Keegan period onwards,( I was at Wembley for the Charity Shield in 77, Dalglishes first game) but it was like the players were mercenaries rather than the Liverpool through and through players that had won championship after championship for almost two decades previous. Up until Dalglish took over, City and Leeds were our main rivals, the teams we hated most and wanted to beat. But something about Kenny and the way he ran the club changed all that and Liverpool became more and more the enemy. Ha ha, that got a lot worse when Fergie took over at OT.

Anyway I cant quite put my finger on it, but at the time we (United fans) felt the change at Anfield during the Dalglish era.

 

 

So you're telling me even after we'd won 4 European Cups and had opened up a large gap on the amount of league titles won, you hated Leeds more than us ? And it started under Dalglish, whom had created the best Liverpool side you'd ever seen ?

 

Feck off for longer this time.

 

 

Souness and then Evans on the pitch, but it's off the pitch where we've lost most ground and are suffering for it today. Should have been in a new stadium several years ago.

[Falconhoof]

Not enough emphasis is placed on what they did off the field to give Ferguson the finances he needed IMO.

It was the expansion of Old Trafford funded by the float on the stock exchange that allowed Ferguson to break transfer records season after season.

Moores and Parry did little more than keep us ticking over while looking at a massive waiting list for season tickets. The stadium should have been off the drawing board and into the planning office long before Hicks and Gillet showed up.

[JRC]

Much as it is true that we should have moved out of Anfield before now, I don't think lack of funds was behind the fall away in the '90s. Souness and Evans broke transfer records regularly, but couldn't build a team to compete effectively or consistently. By United's first PL title in 93, we were already not really challenging - the previous year had been the first time we went 2 years without the title since 1975-, so I would argue we were on the way down anyway by the time Utd started to take over.

 

Also - other clubs tried the commercial/flotation route and crashed and burned, so that wasn't necessarily the best option for us. And Kenyon? No thanks, under any circumstances.

[John am Rhein]

Feck off for longer this time.

 

[Benzo-13]

Graeme Souness has always taken the blame for the so-called Liverpool demise, but I always thought it started under Dalglish. I cant really put my finger on why that was because being a United fan I didnt know the ins and outs of your club. I just felt that Liverpool had always had a way of doing things. They seemed to buy just a couple of players in the summer and bring a couple through the ranks. This way had worked for them for years. Dalglish took over and bought loads of players. Dont get me wrong, that side was the best Liverpool side I have ever seen and I was going to United v Liverpool matches from the Keegan period onwards,( I was at Wembley for the Charity Shield in 77, Dalglishes first game) but it was like the players were mercenaries rather than the Liverpool through and through players that had won championship after championship for almost two decades previous. Up until Dalglish took over, City and Leeds were our main rivals, the teams we hated most and wanted to beat. But something about Kenny and the way he ran the club changed all that and Liverpool became more and more the enemy. Ha ha, that got a lot worse when Fergie took over at OT.

Anyway I cant quite put my finger on it, but at the time we (United fans) felt the change at Anfield during the Dalglish era.

 

So you throw golfballs with razorblades in them at teams you like??

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

We lost our "perch" due to Hillsborough and the toll it took, UEFA's short lived foreigners rule, GG's Arsenal and David Moores abject leadership all happening in the space of five years.

[growler]

its an interesting discussion. I know we can't change history and that we are faced with a situation that places the mancs so far ahead of us on and off the field. What we can do, is ensure the same doesn't happen again to us, and by the same token, put into context the challenges being faced today.

 

I understand what NWR is saying too. Leeds and Man city WERE their competition, because we were so far ahead at the time. Remember, they faced relegation too. For us, we seem to think we have always been aiming for the title, but in reality, most seasons we have just been aiming for a top 4 finish.

 

Its trua about the stadium too. Although, would we take the parry bowl over the potential option to have the new design we saw?

 

Also, would we have had the success we have had recently against the odds without the anfield atmosphere? Once we are winning things, then its fine to move stadiums. However, up until now, its been a crucial cog in us winning games and intimidating the visitors.

[Mike]

it had f*** all to do with united.

[David Hodgson]

Graeme Souness has always taken the blame for the so-called Liverpool demise, but I always thought it started under Dalglish. I cant really put my finger on why that was because being a United fan I didnt know the ins and outs of your club. I just felt that Liverpool had always had a way of doing things. They seemed to buy just a couple of players in the summer and bring a couple through the ranks. This way had worked for them for years. Dalglish took over and bought loads of players. Dont get me wrong, that side was the best Liverpool side I have ever seen and I was going to United v Liverpool matches from the Keegan period onwards,( I was at Wembley for the Charity Shield in 77, Dalglishes first game) but it was like the players were mercenaries rather than the Liverpool through and through players that had won championship after championship for almost two decades previous. Up until Dalglish took over, City and Leeds were our main rivals, the teams we hated most and wanted to beat. But something about Kenny and the way he ran the club changed all that and Liverpool became more and more the enemy. Ha ha, that got a lot worse when Fergie took over at OT.

Anyway I cant quite put my finger on it, but at the time we (United fans) felt the change at Anfield during the Dalglish era.

 

Two things undermined our hegemony over English football - Heysel and the ensuing European ban, and Hillsborough, which had a direct and devastating effect on the best manager in the country at the time.

 

Had we stayed in Europe, we'd have added a couple more European Cups, and been a lot wealthier club. Our level, from being at the top of European football, would have been higher.

 

Kenny was a genius of a manager, but Hillsborough destroyed him, and it may well have shortened the managerial career of Ferguson too, had it happened to him.

 

These are the reasons LFC declined. United did not knock Liverpool off any perch, and what is remarkable is that they took so long to become a force in english football again. Year in year out United outspent everybody but got nowhere. Ferguson deserves so much credit for his era, but he's no Shankly or Paisley. United, from early in his reign, were able to spend and spend big, and it was inevitable that the club would one day get it right. Throughout the 80's, most reds I knew were just waiting for the season that United would actually make the most of their money, and we knew that we'd be up against it when that happened.

 

United are the Real madrid of English football, and their is nothing remarkable about the run they've had. It was entirely inevitable.

[Benzo-13]

Don't forget that a joint (with Everton) 80k stadium in Speke was being discussed as far back as 87.

 

While controversial it would've put us miles ahead of the curve.

[Mike]

United are the Real madrid of English football, and their is nothing remarkable about the run they've had. It was entirely inevitable.

 

correct

[The walters step over]

If anyone knocked us off our 'f*cking' perch it was George Graham.

 

I think the main factor in our fall from competitiveness was being too compliant with the then rule that only 3 non-English players could be used in European matches. Thus we sold the likes of Staunton and held on to the likes of Burrows, for example.

 

That's an important point, the general feeling at the time was that the three foriegner rule was a certainty to be applied in the English league to bring us in line with the rest of Europe. Souness jumped the gun on that and traded quality for mediocre Englishmen (Houghton/Walters, Staunton/Dicks to name but two).

 

Honourable mention must also go to David Moores for running the club seemingly on the basis of "what would Shankley do?" and not noticing that times had changed and maybe adhering strictly to a blue print laid out 30 plus years earlier was not the best way for a modern football club to be run.

[kop205]

They basically filled a void that had been left by our demise rather than in anyway causing it.

 

Arsenal and Leeds both had the chance to fill the void first but neither were good enough, so not only did the Mancs have f*** all to do with 'knocking us off our perch', they were extremely fortunate that nobody else had stepped up onto it before they properly got their act together.

 

If that makes sense what with all the void/perch mixed metaphors.

Edited May 24, 2009 by kop205

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

it was like the players were mercenaries rather than the Liverpool through and through

 

Aldo? Barnes?

 

nonsense that.

[Falconhoof]

it had f*** all to do with united.

 

I dunno Mike. Them being abject for the best part of 26 years left a void for us to fill. Them being out of the way, gave room for us to dominate. So then the flip side of that; as Ferguson built them up into a professionally run club with proper discipline and a consistent transfer policy, then that left less room for us to dominate.

There were other major factors for us declining, but Man U being a good side left us with even less margin for error.

[NWR]

So you're telling me even after we'd won 4 European Cups and had opened up a large gap on the amount of league titles won, you hated Leeds more than us ? And it started under Dalglish, whom had created the best Liverpool side you'd ever seen ?

 

Yes.

 

 

So grow up!

[Red Lecter]

I dunno Mike. Them being abject for the best part of 26 years left a void for us to fill. Them being out of the way, gave room for us to dominate. So then the flip side of that; as Ferguson built them up into a professionally run club with proper discipline and a consistent transfer policy, then that left less room for us to dominate.

There were other major factors for us declining, but Man U being a good side left us with even less margin for error.

Yes, but we were also in a very competitive league with all sorts of teams challenging for top spot - Derby County, Forest, Villa, Ipswich, Everton, Arsenal.

[Falconhoof]

Yes, but we were also in a very competitive league with all sorts of teams challenging for top spot - Derby County, Forest, Villa, Ipswich, Everton, Arsenal.

 

But crucially, no Man U. Like taking Real Madrid out of the situation in La Liga and Europe for over 2 decades. Other clubs would come to the fore, not just Barca.

[John am Rhein]

I dunno Mike. Them being abject for the best part of 26 years left a void for us to fill. Them being out of the way, gave room for us to dominate. So then the flip side of that; as Ferguson built them up into a professionally run club with proper discipline and a consistent transfer policy, then that left less room for us to dominate.

 

They didn't dominate before that anyway. The only club who who had dominated anything like we did before us was Arsenal in the 1930s.

 

(which of course was only possible because we were struggling )

[Falconhoof]

They had the potential to dominate, while we were actually dominating, despite our lack of potential to dominate. As it turned out, us lacking the potential didn't matter and we dominated in any case.

Sadly, United have turned their potential into actual dominance.

[John am Rhein]

Sadly, United have turned their potential into actual dominance.

 

only by rigging the League to give more advantage to those with 'potential' (i.e. money)