Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

Fuhrer

mixednuts wrote: »

@14:23


Now thats Irony .

Its not even close.

FutureGuy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He can do whatever he wants.

However, by joining City he is clearly showing he has no loyalty or respect for Man United fans, so why in the name of god should I show any loyalty or respect for him?

He could have joined a number of other clubs which would not have shown near as much disrespect and where he was a damned site more likely to actually play.

I will not wish him well, I hope this move is an utter failure for him.

Wow, I rarely get involved in these arguments, but this is unbelievable. If Hargreaves offerd to play for FREE to REMAIN at Manchester United and they said no, then he can join anyone he wants. That's about as loyal as he can be. If City offer him a better wage thank other clubs, he'd be mad not to take it. Who knows how long his knee holds up for. If he is fit, he could easily take the squad position of Viera no problem.

Best of luck to him, he was a legend who offered to play for free and was turned down. United are absolutely nuts not to keep him on for free. Nuts. I can understand the decision to stick with youth but he could have done a job for us no question.

tommyhaas

Fuhrer wrote: »

Statement only works if Manchester United had been complete and utter abject failures like Liverpool have been for the last 20 years. He's beaten City plenty of times.

Surely it only works if Citeh actually win the league. I don't see how it's at all relevant to Liverpool

newballsplease

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He can do whatever he wants.

However, by joining City he is clearly showing he has no loyalty or respect for Man United fans, so why in the name of god should I show any loyalty or respect for him?

He could have joined a number of other clubs which would not have shown near as much disrespect and where he was a damned site more likely to actually play.

I will not wish him well, I hope this move is an utter failure for him.

UTD didnt want him..simple as. Its not like hes trying to force a move to a rival club! hes a free agent ffs.

Your talking b0llix!

Leiva

Fuhrer wrote: »

Its not even close.

Right i put down to hypocrisy then .

VW 1

If he had just gone and signed straight for City then I would not wish him well at all.

The fact that he offered to play for us for free and was rejected shows all of the loyalty and respect he has for our club and fans IMO.

After that he can sign for whoever he wants and I wish him the best in his playing career, hopefully he becomes the player he was before his injury.

That said I wish him well personally and I dont want to see City win a thing.

It's possible to wish him well but at the same time hope that City will continue to play second fiddle to us.

Mitch Connor

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

If this was 3 seasons ago and city weren't a threat to us would you wish him well Mitch ?

Possibly - as he wouldn't be signing for a side that are competing directly against us for trophies - where the realistic expectation of the club is to beat United to the league. He could have signed for anyone outside the 'top 4' and I'd not have been bothered, I would have wished him well. But he didn't. He has signed for a club where 'doing well' means beating United to the league or the various cups we compete for - so I don't wish him well at all.

Signing for City would still have left a sour taste in the mouth, but only as much as Cole or Schmeichel signing for them did - it was irritating but not overly so. He has chosen to sign for a side which are both a direct rival right now and between which (us and them) there is massive animosity. It is double whammy.

If you asked a United player 3 years ago who was the worst possible team a United hero (cult or otherwise) could sign for, the answer would not have been City - probably Chelsea at the time. Now, if you asked a United player that question, they would probably acknowledge the answer is City. Hargreaves will know the annoyance such a move would cause - he will have seen how the Tevez transfer went. It is a massive showing of disrespect to the United fans that supported him - so I don't see why United fans should be made feel bad about not wanting him to do well.

HE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT WANT UNITED TO DO WELL, SO WHY SHOULD WE WANT HIM TO?

Fuhrer

tommyhaas wrote: »

Surely it only works if Citeh actually win the league. I don't see how it's at all relevant to Liverpool

Because the quote was from a former Liverpool player and Liverpool could never while United did quite regularly. Thats why using the quote made no sense at all.

syngindub

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Possibly - as he wouldn't be signing for a side that are competing directly against us for trophies - where the realistic expectation of the club is to beat United to the league. He could have signed for anyone outside the 'top 4' and I'd not have been bothered, I would have wished him well. But he didn't. He has signed for a club where 'doing well' means beating United to the league or the various cups we compete for - so I don't wish him well at all.

Signing for City would still have left a sour taste in the mouth, but only as much as Cole or Schmeichel signing for them did - it was irritating but not overly so. He has chosen to sign for a side which are both a direct rival right now and between which (us and them) there is massive animosity. It is double whammy.

If you asked a United player 3 years ago who was the worst possible team a United hero (cult or otherwise) could sign for, the answer would not have been City - probably Chelsea at the time. Now, if you asked a United player that question, they would probably acknowledge the answer is City. Hargreaves will know the annoyance such a move would cause - he will have seen how the Tevez transfer went. It is a massive showing of disrespect to the United fans that supported him - so I don't see why United fans should be made feel bad about not wanting him to do well.

HE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT WANT UNITED TO DO WELL, SO WHY SHOULD WE WANT HIM TO?

who are the top 4 as a matter of interest..
Man Utd
Chelsea
Man City
?

#15

Cap locks and bold letters. The Utd thread is officially in meltdown. It's even spilling over into the LFC thread. :pac:

VW 1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

HE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT WANT UNITED TO DO WELL, SO WHY SHOULD WE WANT HIM TO?

Mitch he wanted us to do well when he offered to play for free for us, why would that have changed? So what if he signs for a rival, had he signed for WBA he still would have tried to beat us when he played against us.

After we told him to fúck off he had to look after himself professionally and thats what he did.

newballsplease

It all really doesnt matter much anyway. 1. He will never be the same player he once was. 2.He wont get in the City team, not with DeJong and Yaya Toure as the defensive midfielders. Yaya now filling in for DeJong when hes out.

tommyhaas

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He can do whatever he wants.

However, by joining City he is clearly showing he has no loyalty or respect for Man United fans, so why in the name of god should I show any loyalty or respect for him?

He could have joined a number of other clubs which would not have shown near as much disrespect and where he was a damned site more likely to actually play.

I will not wish him well, I hope this move is an utter failure for him.

I completely agree with your sentiments regarding players leaving to join rivals, Hargreaves is slightly different though. If it was down to him, he'd still be at Utd. It was the club who wanted rid of him, and so I can't see why he should be under any obligation to move house and play at a lower standard as oppose to stay in Manchester and play for one of the best sides in the league

Obviously for Utd fans it must have been disappointing having him injured so much, however he obviously feels robbed of what could have been the prime of his career, and I reckon, justifiably feels he deserves a chance to play again at the highest level

Mitch Connor

FutureGuy wrote: »

Wow, I rarely get involved in these arguments, but this is unbelievable. If Hargreaves offerd to play for FREE to REMAIN at Manchester United and they said no, then he can join anyone he wants. That's about as loyal as he can be. If City offer him a better wage thank other clubs, he'd be mad not to take it. Who knows how long his knee holds up for. If he is fit, he could easily take the squad position of Viera no problem.

Best of luck to him, he was a legend who offered to play for free and was turned down. United are absolutely nuts not to keep him on for free. Nuts. I can understand the decision to stick with youth but he could have done a job for us no question.

Pragmatically I can understand the choice as well. United said no thanks - the fans did not. As I have said, to me this move shows he does care for the opinions or feelings of the United fans that supported him (forget about the club, they said no thanks) so why should we continue to support him in any way at all?

dahat

DDG must be feeling left out as he hasn't been mentioned in about 5 pages.....

As for Hargo,who gives a rattling fook.......he will not sustain any fitness over the season,he will be lucky to play 15 games and stay fit..

Kylo Ren

Wow I have to admit I'm pretty shocked with some of the posts in here, especially those from respectable posters.

I love Hargreaves. He is such a gifted footballer and I feel if he played for United the last few years injury free and continued on he would go down as a club legend, in my eyes anyway. He was instrumental in our successes in the league and CL way back when.

When I saw him struggling the past few years trying to get back to full fitness I don't think I ever wanted to see a player play so badly. When he walked out on that pitch and pulled his hamstring I was genuinely gutted. I finally thought he was back and could not of been more happy for Owen and excited to see him play again for us.

We left him go. We told him to leave. He has every right to play for who he wants after the horrid last few years he has had. I can't even imagine what the chap went through mentally let alone physically. At this stage in his career and after everything he's went thru he has every right to carve out a career the way he wants to for his last remaining years. For a club like City, in the CL, joined top of the league and competing to a very high standard I'm sure Owen had to think about it for two seconds before he decided.

Good luck Mr. Hargreaves I wish all the success in the world (minus the trophies of course )

nicklauski

VW 1 wrote: »

Mitch he wanted us to do well when he offered to play for free for us, why would that have changed? So what if he signs for a rival, had he signed for WBA he still would have tried to beat us when he played against us.

After we told him to fúck off he had to look after himself professionally and thats what he did.

Be careful with that sense talking VW. It doesn't go down to well here lately.

Vanbis

G.K. wrote: »

Why should he show loyalty if the club didn't give him a new contract and wouldn't even let him stay for free?

He doesn't have to show any loyalty to Manutd, he's a free agent and he was under contract at Manutd when he was injured so they had to do whatever it took to get him back fit playing or not. He was told he was not wanted for one reason or another. He is free do what he wants. Feck all players show any loyalty to clubs these.

Mitch Connor

VW 1 wrote: »

Mitch he wanted us to do well when he offered to play for free for us, why would that have changed? So what if he signs for a rival, had he signed for WBA he still would have tried to beat us when he played against us.

After we told him to fúck off he had to look after himself professionally and thats what he did.

And fair play to him - he has completely cut ties with United and signed for City, his choice to do so at this point. Free to do so as you say and from a dispassionate and professional point of view it is not a bad choice at all. However, football fandom is a thing of passion, he knows that, we all know that. City are the worst club he could sign from from a United fan point of view imo.

He may have wanted us to do well when he was at the club, but having signed for City that is no longer possible. the success of his job depends on United failing. He wants United to fail, I want him to fail. All City player want United to fail. I want all City players to fail. simple.

He doesn't care about the United fans (and there is no obligation on his part in this respect) so why should I treat him any differently to any player they sign. He is one of the enemy now.

RasTa

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Pragmatically I can understand the choice as well. United said no thanks - the fans did not. As I have said, to me this move shows he does care for the opinions or feelings of the United fans that supported him (forget about the club, they said no thanks) so why should we continue to support him in any way at all?

Well if he does go to City and gets a game against us, I for one would be more pissed off at our management for not keeping him on a free contract for 6months then him choosing City.

He doesn't have to show any loyalty to United fans, that's dreamworld talk.

Homer has posted numerous times that he can't understand why we didn't offer him the deal for free, no loss to us. It's all our fault if he goes to City not his.

tommyhaas

Fuhrer wrote: »

Because the quote was from a former Liverpool player and Liverpool could never while United did quite regularly. Thats why using the quote made no sense at all.

I'm pretty sure the saying ''If you cant beat them, join them'' wasn't coined by Michael Owen

A Utd player joined City, and purely because a Liverpool fan suggested he may win trophies at the expense of Utd, you got all upset and started slating Liverpool who are irrelevant to the discussion

FutureGuy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Pragmatically I can understand the choice as well. United said no thanks - the fans did not. As I have said, to me this move shows he does care for the opinions or feelings of the United fans that supported him (forget about the club, they said no thanks) so why should we continue to support him in any way at all?

I can understand your point, but at the end of the day, Manchester United fans are not going to pay his wages at any other club. I think to say he doesn't care about the fans is wrong Mitch. He wouldn't have offered to stay for free otherwise.

I'll continue to support him for the incredible contribution he made while he was fit for us and for the fact that he wanted to play for free even though he could have gottem good money elsewhere. That's unbelievable loyalty.

In this day and age, that's the ultimate gesture from a footballer to the club and it's fans. I will not take any money, just let me stay and play for you. Compare that to Rooneys contract saga at the start of the year. Compare it to the myriad of footballers moving for money and nothing more.

Fcuking proud to have Hargreaves as a United player.

Jax Teller

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Possibly - as he wouldn't be signing for a side that are competing directly against us for trophies - where the realistic expectation of the club is to beat United to the league. He could have signed for anyone outside the 'top 4' and I'd not have been bothered, I would have wished him well. But he didn't. He has signed for a club where 'doing well' means beating United to the league or the various cups we compete for - so I don't wish him well at all.

Signing for City would still have left a sour taste in the mouth, but only as much as Cole or Schmeichel signing for them did - it was irritating but not overly so. He has chosen to sign for a side which are both a direct rival right now and between which (us and them) there is massive animosity. It is double whammy.

If you asked a United player 3 years ago who was the worst possible team a United hero (cult or otherwise) could sign for, the answer would not have been City - probably Chelsea at the time. Now, if you asked a United player that question, they would probably acknowledge the answer is City. Hargreaves will know the annoyance such a move would cause - he will have seen how the Tevez transfer went. It is a massive showing of disrespect to the United fans that supported him - so I don't see why United fans should be made feel bad about not wanting him to do well.

HE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT WANT UNITED TO DO WELL, SO WHY SHOULD WE WANT HIM TO?

read this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2030501/Owen-Hargreaves-fights-The-moving-story-gifted-footballers-refusal-up.html and tell me he didnt love this club or want this club to do well . especially the part of coming off after 5 mins at wolves and crying .

newballsplease

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He doesn't care about the United fans (and there is no obligation on his part in this respect) so why should I treat him any differently to any player they sign. He is one of the enemy now.

apart from the other sh1t in this thread...this is the biggest load of it.

Mitch Connor

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

read this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2030501/Owen-Hargreaves-fights-The-moving-story-gifted-footballers-refusal-up.html and tell me he didnt love this club or want this club to do well . especially the part of coming off after 5 mins at wolves and crying .

And then he goes and signs for, arguably, our biggest rival. Some nice PR alright though.

Quandary

Lets wait to see how this Hargo rumour pans out. Is the Sun still the only source for it?

FutureGuy

RasTa wrote: »

Well if he does go to City and gets a game against us, I for one would be more pissed off at our management for not keeping him on a free contract for 6months then him choosing City.

He doesn't have to show any loyalty to United fans, that's dreamworld talk.

Homer has posted numerous times that he can't understand why we didn't offer him the deal for free, no loss to us. It's all our fault if he goes to City not his.

100%. I wouldn't be annoyed at Hargreaves. I'd be annoyed at United for letting him go in the circumstances they did. If fit, he would have been a superb squad player. If not fit, he was essentially not being paid.

Well done to City if it works out. Great business. They clearly see potential, otherwise they would have no qualms blowing 15m on another squad player.

Fuhrer

tommyhaas wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the saying ''If you cant beat them, join them'' wasn't coined by Michael Owen

A Utd player joined City, and purely because a Liverpool fan suggested he may win trophies at the expense of Utd, you got all upset and started slating Liverpool who are irrelevant to the discussion

No, a Liverpool fan tried a cheap wind up by using a joke made about Liverpool and trying to mangle it into one about United. The joke only worked if United havent been utterly dominant over City for the last 20 odd years.

syngindub

Mitch Connor wrote: »

And then he goes and signs for, arguably, our biggest rival. Some nice PR alright though.

Mitch, you signature is incorrect..Man City on the brain

The_Kew_Tour

Quandary wrote: »

Lets wait to see how this Hargo rumour pans out. Is the Sun still the only source for it?

SSN has it has their main story

nicklauski

He hasn't signed for anyone yet.

G.K.

Andrew Haigh has it as a done deal.

killwill

Right my tuppence worth on Owen Hargreaves.
I believe he was a loyal servant throughout his time as a United player. He did everything in his power to get back to fitness and play to the level he used to play. For that I applaud him.
However, I do see where Mitch is coming from. Football loyalty is more than just loyalty to the club that pays you. It is also about the supporters. I am very disappointed to hear he could be going to City, as is nearly every Utd supporter I would imagine.
I personally was hoping he would go play in the MLS for at least a season to prove his fitness and then come back to the EPL or Europe but to sign for City?
Pffft, I reckon it is out of bitterness he is doing so.
Hargreaves shirt never to be worn again by Killwill!!!

Jax Teller

Mitch Connor wrote: »

And then he goes and signs for, arguably, our biggest rival. Some nice PR alright though.

You're coming across as very bitter .

Le King

Hargreaves is PR from City. Still a small time club. They will be back in their box when all the FFP rules come in.

killwill

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

read this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2030501/Owen-Hargreaves-fights-The-moving-story-gifted-footballers-refusal-up.html and tell me he didnt love this club or want this club to do well . especially the part of coming off after 5 mins at wolves and crying .

That just means he was upset on a personal level, not a professional/Utd level.

killwill

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

You're coming across as very bitter .

I think that is because he is bitter, and has every right to be. I too feel like I have been sucking on lemons.

IamtheWalrus

killwill wrote: »

Football loyalty is more than just loyalty to the club that pays you. It is also about the supporters.

You're serious aren't you? Owen Hargreaves is potentially been given the chance to resurrect his career at Premier League club and you think he should turn it down as loyalty to Man Utd? My god.

Your Airbag

If City knock Utd out of any cup and Hargreaves is playing I'll be miffed but hey thats football, he'll be doing his job.

If he gets a good run of games and an Enlgand call up I'll genuinely be delighted for the guy. Obviously I don't want to see City pip Utd to the league or champions league title but if it happens it wont be down to Owen. It will be a massive team effort on City's part.

I cant see him dislodging anyone from the team for long periods of time unless he hits 08 form and Hargreves hasn't gone from UTD to City. We let him go. He's gone from an early retirement to having a chance at top flight football again.

If he does return to 08 form and is a regular in City's team for the next couple of years, well, so be it.

When he is good he is a credit to any team and the sport in general.

Football's better off as a whole for having him involved.

killwill

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

You're serious aren't you? Owen Hargreaves is potentially been given the chance to resurrect his career at Premier League club and you think he should turn it down as loyalty to Man Utd? My god.

No I never said that, read again, as loyalty to the fans.
He had the chance to resurrect it at WBA, who are a premier league club.

Mitch Connor

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

You're coming across as very bitter .

Fair enough - cause it is probably accurate in fairness. In a few days I will probably calm down and it will annoy me a lot less - though I still won't 'wish him well'.

My main point is that as a Man City player, he will be actively trying to stop United from winning the league, in every game he plays. Why should I wish him well in that goal?

Wolfe Tone

Well done Hargreaves I say, fair play.


He offered to play for Utd for free, but was turned down. He gets offered a contract, probably for big money, in the same city by a top 4 club with the potential if it all comes together, to win the league. He would be stupid to turn it down, he has shown Utd plenty of Loyalty, ad always gave his all in the shirt. I think, on paper anyway, city are the second best team in the league. He would be stupid to turn it down, remember, HE WANTED to stay at Utd, but Utd didn't want him.


I hope this goes well for Hargo, it will be a fairytale return, something he deserves. If he goes to City I will not hold it against him.

POSSY

I know people are saying it's a PR stunt by City but I really can't understand why they would sign him. He hasn't kicked a ball in years! I could understand a team with lesser ambitions signing him but the for City to sign him does baffle me.


On a personal level, I wont be angry with him if he does sign for them but I will be disappointed. Surely he knows the issues between the two sides and surely he knows how many chances Sir Alex gave him to get fit, while I won't say he's wrong to do what he's done (after all city have probably offered him a lot more money than he would have gotten elsewhere), it certainly leaves a sour taste.

Your Airbag

Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney would have no qualms with Owen Hargreaves joining Manchester City, stating he wishes the midfielder 'luck'.

Even Mr Hothead himself is showing a little humility regarding Owen. People would do well to follow suit.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,11667_7138841,00.html

Paul Tergat

Hargreaves doing whats best for his career. Hope he wins nothing with them of course.

Meh.

G.K.

killwill wrote: »

No I never said that, read again, as loyalty to the fans.
He had the chance to resurrect it at WBA, who are a premier league club.

So for loyalty to the fans of the club who released you you would turn Man City down for West Brom. Seriously?

POSSY

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well done Hargreaves I say, fair play.


He offered to play for Utd for free, but was turned down. He gets offered a contract, probably for big money, in the same city by a top 4 club with the potential if it all comes together, to win the league. He would be stupid to turn it down, he has shown Utd plenty of Loyalty, ad always gave his all in the shirt. I think, on paper anyway, city are the second best team in the league. He would be stupid to turn it down, remember, HE WANTED to stay at Utd, but Utd didn't want him.


I hope this goes well for Hargo, it will be a fairytale return, something he deserves. If he goes to City I will not hold it against him.

While I agree with some of your points, he's been banging on about how much he wants to play 40 games a season and prove his worth, but at the end of the day he certainly won't be getting into the City starting XI and it's obvious enough this is about money, so he's obviously ready to be paid to watch others play.

SlickRic

City are doing it to try and troll you lot.

that is it.

Hargreaves would be a fúcking moron not to accept this deal, if it happens.

he gets to stay at a PL club, on better wages than anyone else would offer him, and he doesn't have to move house.

newballsplease

Macheda could be going to Newcastle on Loan according to his agent and SSN

Fuhrer

POSSY wrote: »

While I agree with some of your points, he's been banging on about how much he wants to play 40 games a season and prove his worth, but at the end of the day he certainly won't be getting into the City starting XI and it's obvious enough this is about money, so he's obviously ready to be paid to watch others play.

Hargreaves has never even played 30 league games in his entire Career. If he goes it'll be as a squad player and he better hope he suffers no niggling injuries or else he might never get to play again.