January Signings (manU)

Ruskie4Rent

I'm dubious about alot of the names being thrown about, i'm not sure who are the genuine targets. Suposedly they're after Evra, De Jong, Davis, Graveson, Pasqual and Vidic.

So who's the most likely to be signed and are there any other rumours that I haven't heard yet? I'm sure theres's loads.

Jonny Arson

If the names you mentioned there are true, this proves that United are in some crisis on and off the pitch. Manchester United should be aiming to sign world class players and not have decent ones like the ones mentioned. Obviously there is not much money there and I think United should stick with the current squad they've got, save their cash because they won't catch Chelsea no matter what average international player they sign.

scuba steve

De Jong wants to leave Ajax doesnt he?

LostinBlanch

The Guardian:

Manchester United have opened formal talks with Spartak Moscow for their Serbia & Montenegro international defender Nemanja Vidic with a view to bringing him to Old Trafford either in the next month's transfer window or at the end of the season.

The approach was confirmed last night by the Spartak president Sergey Sharlo, who said that he had quoted a fee of around £11m. United value him at much less and a deal could hinge on whether the two clubs can reach a compromise.

The Mirror:

Sir Alex Ferguson will make a £5million bid for Monaco defender Patrice Evra during the transfer window as he starts running repairs at Manchester United.
Ferguson is desperate to sign a new left-back over fears surrounding Gabriel Heinze.

The Argentine may not play again this term because of damaged cruciate ligaments.

Frenchman Evra, 24, is top of Ferguson's hitlist and he has been tracking the pacy international ever since he helped Monaco reach the Champions League Final in 2004.

colster

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

If the names you mentioned there are true, this proves that United are in some crisis on and off the pitch. Manchester United should be aiming to sign world class players and not have decent ones like the ones mentioned. Obviously there is not much money there and I think United should stick with the current squad they've got, save their cash because they won't catch Chelsea no matter what average international player they sign.

I disagree. Liverpool, Porto and Greece have all proved that you don't need world class players in every position to win in Europe. A good coach, a good team spirit with some very good players can do the business.
From what I've heard/seen of the players mentioned above. They're pretty good and should address United weak areas Centre Half, Full Back support and Central Midfield.
AFAIK De Jong is out of contract in the summer. United are rumoured to be getting him in January for 1m as a result.
Vidic may not come as he's a stated preference for Serie A.

Jonny Arson

colster wrote:

I disagree. Liverpool, Porto and Greece have all proved that you don't need world class players in every position to win in Europe. A good coach, a good team spirit with some very good players can do the business.

I'm not begrudging those afformentioned teams success but Porto have achieved zilch since 2004, Greece failed to qualify for the World Cup and Liverpool as we all know play a poor brand of football.

Work ethic and team spirit are all important aspects every team should have but Manchester United are a side who should have more than this and that is having genuine world class quality which as far as i'm concerned none of the linked players have. If Ferguson can't get the best out our current squad he won't have a chance with those players.

PHB

Uniteds midfield is not up to sratch full stop, and a top class midfielder is required.


De Jong and Graveson would be great signings imo.
I would like someone with a little more attacking flair, but I don't mind.
Once a battler is bought in midfield, i'd be very happy.

Vidic would sure up the defense a little, although with Brown coming to strengths I think he could well take up his rightful place as the best defender united have.

p.pete

colster wrote:

I disagree. Liverpool, Porto and Greece have all proved that you don't need world class players in every position to win in Europe.

Teams like Real Madrid (not recently) and Brazil proove it too when they win things with a dodgy defence for example.

Sajan

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

Liverpool as we all know play a poor brand of football.

Good statement. Well founded over the last 7 weeks especially.

johnor

What world class players would be allowed to move mid season? Theres never any huge name moving in the january window, unless they are huge names who have had their name tainted in some way. We need 2/3 midfielders, obviously they cant all be world class signings in terms of expierence and ability. If we can get some good young players with good ability in january then maybe we can add to that in teh summer. Zokora was saying how he'd like to play in the premiership, was reported on planetfootball. Its between Arsenal and United apparently. Hes a player i like, whether he could prove himself in the english league remains to be seen as he's a young talent..

The whole left back are will be dealt with in january, heinze should be back toward the end of the season and i can imagine Ferguson only looking for a player who can do better then the current replacements for heinze. I was thinkin bout this and hoping that if we can get someone who is as good as heinze, the possibility of moving heinze more central and playing him with rio or brown when he is fit again...

Ruskie4Rent

I hope manu buy some strong, aggresive and big players for the midfield. I like the idea of graveson, not that i think he's a great player but united seem to lack a certain steelyness at times.

A few players should leave IMO, a smaller squad can benifit teams in certain occasions, as long as it's not another centre mid.

mchurl

would lie to see de jong join, i tink he's quality. Gravesen would only be a stop gap imo.

PiE

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

Liverpool as we all know play a poor brand of football.

As we all know? Do you actually watch football or just come on here to spout rubbish every once in a while?

Utd's problems are in center midfield, I don't think Graveson is the ideal player to rectify that but he would help. They need to find a midfielder who could take the captain's armband from Neville. I know lots of Utd fans respect him a lot, but I don't think he's captain material... far too weedy and whiney to be listened to.

The Muppet

As most otheres have said I fell Graveson would do in the short term but I would imagine United are looking for a more long term solution to the lack of steel in midfield.

Who that will be is is anyones guess. If there is one advantage to not being a public company it is that they can do their business in private without alerting their nearest competitors of their intentions.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

As most otheres have said I fell Graveson would do in the short term but I would imagine United are looking for a more long term solution to the lack of steel in midfield.

Graveson will not sign imo, because the deal with Keane and Real did not happen.

Who that will be is is anyones guess.

I would actually agree with you there

If there is one advantage to not being a public company it is that they can do their business in private without alerting their nearest competitors of their intentions.

What do you base this evidence on? Why would the change from public to private ownership affect Manu's ability to sign whom they want in Jan? What "advantage" does it give them, on the back of the Glazer takeover? How does the fact that they have been bought give a disadvantage to their competitors, like Chelsea, Liverpool, etc....?

cournioni

I hear Maniche is pretty unsettled in Russia at the moment, he could be one possibility.

PHB

What do you base this evidence on? Why would the change from public to private ownership affect Manu's ability to sign whom they want in Jan? What "advantage" does it give them, on the back of the Glazer takeover? How does the fact that they have been bought give a disadvantage to their competitors, like Chelsea, Liverpool, etc....?

Because as a public company, certain dealings done by United were forced to be discolsed on the stock exchange, to shareholders etc.
Thus they always had trouble negotiating a deal quietly and unknown to their competitors.
As a private company, they do not have this problem

Hobart

Utd will defineately take Vidic, if they can agree a fee. But with SM asking £11M and Manu's 'alleged' offer of £5M+ extras, it might not happen.

Hobart

PHB wrote:

Because as a public company, certain dealings done by United were forced to be discolsed on the stock exchange, to shareholders etc.
Thus they always had trouble negotiating a deal quietly and unknown to their competitors.
As a private company, they do not have this problem

You seem to misunderstand me PHB. I was wondering what evidence/examples there are of deals/negotiations/etc... done by Manu as a PLC where the 'PLC' element of it worked against them? Irrespective of their obligations, under the LSE regs, where were they disadvantaged (even potentially) by being a PLC, in the transfer market?

Lemlin

Hobart wrote:

You seem to misunderstand me PHB. I was wondering what evidence/examples there are of deals/negotiations/etc... done by Manu as a PLC where the 'PLC' element of it worked against them? Irrespective of their obligations, under the LSE regs, where were they disadvantaged (even potentially) by being a PLC, in the transfer market?

Well I'm not sure of the story behind it but they very publically lost out on Robben to Chelski. Not to mention Ronaldinho to Barca.

Hobart

Lemlin wrote:

Well I'm not sure of the story behind it but they very publically lost out on Robben to Chelski. Not to mention Ronaldinho to Barca.

I did'nt realise that they were in the market for Robben. As for the Ronaldinho story, my understanding was that Barca(a co-op) just offered more money in wages? Why would Manu's position as a PLC have had an infulence on these failed singings?

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

I did'nt realise that they were in the market for Robben.

Uniteds interest in Robben and the circumstances surrounding his transfer must have been one of the most covered stories of the time.

Are we a new convert to the beautiful game?

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

Uniteds interest in Robben and the circumstances surrounding his transfer must have been one of the most covered stories of the time.

Are we a new convert to the beautiful game?

Not at all, around the time of the Robben to Chelski transfer, I was working abroad. My only concern was with Liverpool and was not really interested in the whole Robben affair tbh, this is the first I have heard of Manu's interest. I must to a search on BBC to see what the full story was, and how Manu lost out.

Anyhow, now that that is cleared up, why don't you address my inital points raised to your points wrt Manu and the advanatge it now has as a non-PLC?

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

Not at all, around the time of the Robben to Chelski transfer, I was working abroad. My only concern was with Liverpool and was not really interested in the whole Robben affair tbh, this is the first I have heard of Manu's interest. I must to a search on BBC to see what the full story was, and how Manu lost out.?

Ah right so , do that.


Anyhow, now that that is cleared up, why don't you address my inital points raised to your points wrt Manu and the advanatge it now has as a non-PLC?

As a public company United were obligied to perform their transactions in Public and declare them publically. As a private company they are no longer under that obligation.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

As a public company United were obligied to perform their transactions in Public and declare them publically. As a private company they are no longer under that obligation.

Ok. I accept that, and maybe I'm missing something huge here, but what transactions did Manu do in public, that would have caused a different outcome in private? Seriously why would they have an advantage now, by being owned by the yankies, that they did not have as a PLC? I'm not looking for a blow by blow account. I'm just looking for an explanation of what you mean? I do understand the difference between a PLC and a Ltd company , I just don't see the relevance when it comes to transfers?

I also think that you are missing a couple of tags in the above message!!

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

Ok. I accept that, and maybe I'm missing something huge here, but what transactions did Manu do in public, that would have caused a different outcome in private? Seriously why would they have an advantage now, by being owned by the yankies, that they did not have as a PLC? I'm not looking for a blow by blow account. I'm just looking for an explanation of what you mean? I do understand the difference between a PLC and a Ltd company , I just don't see the relevance when it comes to transfers?

When your goggling for the information on Robben see if you can dig anything else up on other united transfers . I,m sure you will find what you are after.

Thanks for the heads up on the tags, the old spelling can be a bit poor to from time to time so if you want you can keep an eye on that too.

Cheers.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

When your goggling for the information on Robben see if you can dig anything else up on other united transfers . I,m sure you will find what you are after.

I'm interested in your hypotheis that manu are in a more advatages position, transfer wise, then they were as a PLC. Stop being trolly and address the issue. I have been straight with you, FFS, why are you trying to start another flame fest?

Forget about the whole Robben thing, which I have admitted I did not know about, why don't you just answer the question? What exactly is your probelm here? Seriously?

Thanks for the heads up on the tags, the old spelling can be a bit poor to from time to time so if you want you can keep an eye on that too.

Cheers.

Stop being a troll. You are not very good at it, and you are only letting yourself down.

el rabitos

Personally i think when there is uncertainty about a managers future at a club, that club will find it difficult to attract players of a certain calibre.

with united being the club they are, there will always be players that will want to be at the club no matter what. but can man u get the players THEY want, ie ronaldinho, robben, that serbian defender that liverpool are in for too, i'm not sure

the best thing that could happen to united would be for fergie to step aside at the end of the season and let someone else build a team over the summer.

as much as i'd love to see united pull a leeds. i prefere to have a competative top 4 and losing the man u/ liverpool rivalry (which i think is the biggest rivalry in the premiership) is not something i'd like to see.

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

I'm interested in your hypotheis that manu are in a more advatages position, transfer wise, then they were as a PLC. Stop being trolly and address the issue. I have been straight with you, FFS, why are you trying to start another flame fest?

Forget about the whole Robben thing, which I have admitted I did not know about, why don't you just answer the question? What exactly is your probelm here? Seriously?

Stop being a troll. You are not very good at it, and you are only letting yourself down.

Tell you what we obviously don't understand each others posts so lets just agree to ignore each other and let the soccer forum function.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

Tell you what we obviously don't understand each others posts so lets just agree to ignore each other and let the soccer forum function.

I understand you very well.

You, once again, came out with a statement that you cannot backup. If you don't want to/cant answer a question, I suggest you post elsewhere. Nobody likes a Troll, and that is what you are being.

My question to you, put straight and simple, still stands. I won't hold my breath Muppet, waiting for an answer.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Gentlemen cool it or the bannings will be doled out.

blastman

I fail to see how being a private company in debt to the tune of £500 million+ has an advantage in the transfer market, to be honest.

Hobart

blastman wrote:

I fail to see how being a private company in debt to the tune of £500 million+ has an advantage in the transfer market, to be honest.

It doesn't. It also does not matter if you do your dealings in private or take out a full page ad on page 3 of the Sun to advertise your intentions. It gives no advantage nor puts a disadvantage on the club.

therecklessone

Hobart wrote:

It doesn't. It also does not matter if you do your dealings in private or take out a full page ad on page 3 of the Sun to advertise your intentions. It gives no advantage nor puts a disadvantage on the club.

Could it be that as a private company you can conduct financial dealings in privacy, and the club won't have to reveal details of transfer fees, signing on fees, and wages? Its not a huge advantage I'll grant you that, but surely it means that your competitors will have a tougher job assessing your sepnding power (though the selling club, your transfer target and his agent can't be relied on to keep mum)?

BKtje

It doesn't. It also does not matter if you do your dealings in private or take out a full page ad on page 3 of the Sun to advertise your intentions. It gives no advantage nor puts a disadvantage on the club.

Surely if a club sees the fact that your going for a player they then realise that there is a chance that if they'll sell to manu that they'd also sell to your club x. While im unsure at exactly how big a different it will make it, imo, is definately a slight advantage of being private (how big remains to be seen). I however dont think it cancels out the 500m of debt

That is what i think the muppet is trying to say and tbh hobart your being very generous with your trolling comments (i really think boards as gotten very bad in this respect with posters seeing trolls left right and centre and letting acusations fly...i remember a time when...). I dont think the muppet (for once) warranted it.

Hobart

B-K-DzR wrote:

Surely if a club sees the fact that your going for a player they then realise that there is a chance that if they'll sell to manu that they'd also sell to your club x.

I don't really get what your saying here tbh.

My point is that if Manu decide to go after player (x), the fact that they are a PLC or not, has no bearing on the success or lack of success in their pursuit. Same with the reverse, i.e. if player x is approached by Manu, the PLC/Non-PLC issue does not come into it. I don't see how it could. It's not as if AF had to declare to the LSE his intentions for the coming season.

That is what i think the muppet is trying to say and tbh hobart your being very generous with your trolling comments (i really think boards as gotten very bad in this respect with posters seeing trolls left right and centre and letting acusations fly...i remember a time when...). I dont think the muppet (for once) warranted it.

I disagree. Look back on the thread. Anyhow back on track.

Atlas_IRL

Chelsea try buy most players united want to sign when they go public about their transfers...

Essian
Robben
and that norwegian kid
and Freddie Adu


Is he saying that they HAD to go public then because of shareholders etc but dont know because their public..

Here no-one wants to read u two go back and forth thats 2 threads now..

to the thunderdome with you

Hobart

therecklessone wrote:

Could it be that as a private company you can conduct financial dealings in privacy, and the club won't have to reveal details of transfer fees, signing on fees, and wages? Its not a huge advantage I'll grant you that, but surely it means that your competitors will have a tougher job assessing your sepnding power (though the selling club, your transfer target and his agent can't be relied on to keep mum)?

That is true, to an extent, but from a "were going after player x" perspective the wages/signing on fees etc... are neogiated with the players agents/reps before the fact. The revealing of what they are, after they are done in no real advantage tbh, as they are done after the fact. So no, it would make no difference whatsoever.


IF team x want to know what e.g. Rio is on per week, with a view to signing him, the team only has to approach Rio's agent, so the fact that a "current" players wages are public knowledge, something Manu never published on their end year accounts, is of no advantage to anybody whatsoever.

Chucky the tree

THe robben signing was ruined cos of peter kenyon joined chelsea and told them about it wasnt it? United havent had any transfers go tits up due to the fact they were a PLC. As therecklessone said, the only advantage is they have to realise there financial records.

Not a big deal, considering peoples wages and transfer funds get leaken 99% of the time anyway.

Hobart

Chucky the tree wrote:

THe robben signing was ruined cos of peter kenyon joined chelsea and told them about it wasnt it? United havent had any transfers go tits up due to the fact they were a PLC. As therecklessone said, the only advantage is they have to realise there financial records.

Looks like that was part of the reason alright http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/3477515.stm . Also the inability of ManU to stick to the original deal is blamed, and the messing between AF anf united main shareholders over a certain horse, was also put forward as a reaon.

No mention of this PLC lark. A PLC does not have to reveal the individual players wages to the public anyhow. Just a cumlitave figure for the whole team.

BKtje

My point is that if Manu decide to go after player (x), the fact that they are a PLC or not

Think your missing my point with the playes wages thing. Im not talkign about wages or singing on fees at all.

Right lets see... Im a big name player who a few clubs have been after for a while but my club has told em where they can go. Man u then come in and my club decide, what the hell they offer us a good amount and agree. Now if manu were a plc they'd have to let the world know that they were after me (which might also happen through "leaks" at the selling club but lets ignore that) and therefore all interested clubs would make a bid. Without having Manu declare that interest publically so many clubs may not have come in for me (as i said the chances of this not being leaked by the selling club or telling others is minimal which is why its probably not that big an advantage).
Basically it may delay the bidding war for a while by which time i might have already agreed a deal or be well along the road.

/me goes back to dreaming of being played to play sports.

Hobart

B-K-DzR wrote:

Think your missing my point with the playes wages thing. Im not talkign about wages or singing on fees at all.

Ok. I see where your going.

Right lets see... Im a big name player who a few clubs have been after for a while but my club has told em where they can go. Man u then come in and my club decide, what the hell they offer us a good amount and agree. Now if manu were a plc they'd have to let the world know that they were after me

Why? Why would Manu have to let the world know that they were trying to buy you? Why would their PLC status compell them to tell anybody that they were trying to purchase player x?

Chucky the tree

B-K-DzR wrote:

Think your missing my point with the playes wages thing. Im not talkign about wages or singing on fees at all.

Right lets see... Im a big name player who a few clubs have been after for a while but my club has told em where they can go. Man u then come in and my club decide, what the hell they offer us a good amount and agree. Now if manu were a plc they'd have to let the world know that they were after me (which might also happen through "leaks" at the selling club but lets ignore that) and therefore all interested clubs would make a bid. Without having Manu declare that interest publically so many clubs may not have come in for me (as i said the chances of this not being leaked by the selling club or telling others is minimal which is why its probably not that big an advantage).
Basically it may delay the bidding war for a while by which time i might have already agreed a deal or be well along the road.

/me goes back to dreaming of being played to play sports.

err thats a very very basic(and well, wrong way of lloking at it).

I never remeber Man united having to announce their signings to the stock market? Can someone post a link to it? Surely if they did have to announce that, they would make they deal, get the deal signed, the players contract sorted and then announce it to the stock market.

Also you example is fairly unrealistic. IF your a big name player who clubs have wanted to sign but your club has turned down, you club arent going to suddenly turn around and just accept united offer and do nothing. They will go back to the other clubs and say "here united bid X amount for johnny superstar and we are going to accept, unless you come in with a better offer". They will try start a bidding war.

Lemlin

Chucky the tree wrote:

err thats a very very basic(and well, wrong way of lloking at it).

I never remeber Man united having to announce their signings to the stock market? Can someone post a link to it? Surely if they did have to announce that, they would make they deal, get the deal signed, the players contract sorted and then announce it to the stock market.

Also you example is fairly unrealistic. IF your a big name player who clubs have wanted to sign but your club has turned down, you club arent going to suddenly turn around and just accept united offer and do nothing. They will go back to the other clubs and say "here united bid X amount for johnny superstar and we are going to accept, unless you come in with a better offer". They will try start a bidding war.

What's the point of wasting their time starting a bidding war. They should just go to Chelsea, tell them whatever United are willing to pay, and they'll double it

Fair play Roman I say.

Hobart

Chucky the tree wrote:

err thats a very very basic(and well, wrong way of lloking at it).

I never remeber Man united having to announce their signings to the stock market? Can someone post a link to it?

They won't. Links don't exist. Manu's responsibilities as a PLC were not to the stock exchange. The stock exchange are a trading company that's it. The BOE enforces some regulations on PLC's, which are enforcable by law, but Manu do not have any obligation to the public, in a PLC guise. They were owned by and responsible to their shareholders. That's it.

This whole "advantage as a private company" v "PLC" argument is a complete misnomer. There are no advantages, maybe the guy who started this whole debacle, would give us his angle, as maybe he meant something different?

BKtje

ah right seems i got the wrong end of the stick. Apologies so.

Regarding the example.... it wasnt meant to be realistic ffs.. it was just an example

The Muppet

the muppet wrote:

If there is one advantage to not being a public company it is that they can do their business in private without alerting their nearest competitors of their intentions.

Thats what I said. It hardly merits 2 pages of discusssion but I have a feeling everything I post for the forseeable future will be disected and scrutinised to the nth degree.


What I meant by it is If there is any advantage to being private it is that you can conduct your delaings in privacy.

To illustrate what I mean I will use Arsenal purchas of Reyes. There was not so much as a whisper of that deal going through until it was signed and sealed.

When is the last time that happened with big name United signing. At the time of Reyes signing this was discussed here and one of the reasons put forward was United being a PLC.

Another advantage of not being a PLC when signing players is that you do not have to publically announce the prices you have paid or salary or inducements offered to the player. I know thats a murky area but we all know it happens and in that regard united are now playing on a level pitch.

TheMonster

The Muppet wrote:

Thats what I said. It hardly merits 2 pages of discusssion but I have a feeling everything I saw for the forseeable future will be disected scrutinised to the nth degree.


What I menat by it is If therer is any advantage to being private it is that you can conduct your delaings in privacy.

To illustrate what I mean I will use Arsenal purchase of Reyes. There was not so much as a whisper of that deal going through until it was signed and sealed.

When is the last time that happened with big name United signing. At the time of Reyes signing this was discussed here and one of the reasons
put forward was United being a PLC.

Another advantage of not being a PLC when signing players is that you do not have to publically announce the prices you have paid or salary or inducements offered to the player. I know thats a murky area but we all know it happens and in that regard united are now playing on a level pitch.

Muppet - I agree with you and TBH if he hadn't heard Robben was originally supposed to sign for United then theres not really much point in having a serious discusssion with him.:rolleyes:

The Muppet

TheMonster wrote:

Muppet - I agree with you and TBH if he hadn't heard Robben was originally supposed to sign for United then theres not really much point in having a serious discusssion with him.:rolleyes:

Cheers Monster thats very much appreciated.

I think you are right.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

What I meant by it is If there is any advantage to being private it is that you can conduct your delaings in privacy.

What you said is plain for all to see. No need to re-quote. However I have still to see a single example of where Manu's PLC status worked against them in the transfer market. Actually if you keep avaioding the issue and repeating yourself, you may actually begin to believe it.

To illustrate what I mean I will use Arsenal purchase of Reyes. There was not so much as a whisper of that deal going through until it was signed and sealed.

When is the last time that happened with big name United signing. At the time of Reyes signing this was discussed here and one of the reasons
put forward was United being a PLC.

It may have been one of the reasons put forward, but it was incorrect.

Another advantage of not being a PLC when signing players is that you do not have to publically announce the prices you have paid or salary or inducements offered to the player.

No PLC HAS to do this. When was the last time Manu PUBLICLY reveal the details of any players salary/inducements/etc... because of their PLC status?

I know thats a murky area but we all know it happens and in that regard united are now playing on a level pitch.

It's not a murky area. It's fantasy.

TheMonster wrote:

Muppet - I agree with you and TBH if he hadn't heard Robben was originally supposed to sign for United then theres not really much point in having a serious discusssion with him.

OMG I did'nt know about a transfer that never happened. At least I did not atempt to BS my way out of it.

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

What you said is plain for all to see. No need to re-quote. However I have still to see a single example of where Manu's PLC status worked against them in the transfer market. Actually if you keep avaioding the issue and repeating yourself, you may actually begin to believe it.

I'm sure I have adequetly explained my point to the satisfaction of 99.9% of the forum.

Hobart wrote:

It may have been one of the reasons put forward, but it was incorrect.

You are entitled to your opinion

Hobart wrote:

No PLC HAS to do this. When was the last time Manu PUBLICLY reveal the details of any players salary/inducements/etc... because of their PLC status? It's not a murky area. It's fantasy.

In recent years United Publically announced all fees including agents fees. Maybe you were abroad too long.

Hobart wrote:

It's not a murky area. It's fantasy.

LOL. So you say the practice of offering inducements to players to sign is fantasy. I suggest you add that to your growing list of things to google.

Hobart wrote:

OMG I did'nt know about a transfer that never happened. At least I did not atempt to BS my way out of it.

As you have already seen by a couple of replies the rest of the users are getting fed up with you games. I have no intention of ruining this forum by playing along.

It is obvious to me and obviously to other membere here you could write what you know about soccer on the back of a postage stamp and have room left over.

You must think the users here are stupid if you think they can not see what you are doing.I,m not playing your game any more, this ends now. From this point on I will selectively reply to your posts.

I repeat the advice I gave you yesterday .Give it up man you are making a public show of yourself. Thats not just my opinon BTW.