Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

Vanbis

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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?

I can understand the point your making. I certainly don't want him to be successful with City or them for that fact but i don't understand why anyone would not like to see him back playing every week and if that happens to be with City so what. It doesn't mean i will be cheering him on when they play. Not a chance.

Leiva

Fuhrer wrote: »

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.

Wasn't a cheap wind up .

It was a simple hypothetical post of how Hargreaves lack of loyalty could manifest itself at the end of the season .

To say it was a cheap wind up then you are saying whoever has that quote as their sig is attempting to wind up someone- some how with every post they make .

That is something i dont believe is the case by the way .

This is getting silly . last word to you .

newballsplease

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.

ya its SOOO obvious this move is for money when he offered to play for FREE at UTD.



AAAAGHHHH clown comments on here

Mitch Connor

G.K. wrote: »

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

If he wanted the continued support of United fans, yeah, imo. He has signed for our biggest rivals. No way I can wish success for him, and therefor City. I hope he can maintain fitness, and realises not playing for City while fit is fairly crap, and thus signs for someone else where him doing well is unlikely to have an impact on United winning the league.

Wolfe Tone

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.

He will get games, if he gets back near his best he will definitely play.

Paul Tergat

Also lol @ mixednuts. Made a balls of that mate!

POSSY

newballsplease wrote: »

ya its SOOO obvious this move is for money when he offered to play for FREE at UTD.



AAAAGHHHH clown comments on here

So you genuinely think he can compete for a starting place at City?

Le King

He will be lucky to play at all this season. He's finished.

syngindub

For what it's worth..
Hargreaves made his Man Utd Debut playing against Man City in a 1-0 defeat.

POSSY

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

He will get games, if he gets back near his best he will definitely play.

IMO with the squad City have he's looking at FA Cup, CC and a few games agains bottom of the league teams. If he'd gone to a club like WBA he would have been in with a shout of playing consistently and getting to play a genuine part in the team.

I don't know why City fans are getting offended that Utd fans think he's doing it just for the money, if anything it should be a complement that I don't think he's going to be near good enough to get in your team!

newballsplease

POSSY wrote: »

So you genuinely think he can compete for a starting place at City?

doesnt matter what i think. If he thinks he can, and City think he can.... then thats all that matters really.
To say hes moving for the money tho is bull. He lives in Manchester for one...

G.K.

If he reaches 08 form, he could really threaten De Jong, and he'll prolly fill in for Yaya in January.

Blatter

I still hold the exact same stance as Mitch.

I won't be ever wishing him well, no way. And nor should I be guilt tripped into doing so. He's joined a rival, and if you wish one of their players well, you are indirectly(whether you like it or not) wishing the rival well also.

And to those saying United turned down his offer to play for free. That's not all that clear cut my any stretch.

What supposedly happend was, Hargreaves offered and the club said 'You don't really want to do that, do you?' That, to me, could be the club saying 'are you sure you want to do this?'. Hargreaves himself said the club were right and he 'probably wouldn't want to play for free'.

So claims of an outright rejection from United are not known to be correct. If Hargreaves had come back and said 'yeah, I'm sure I want to do this', United could well have accepted. It is quite possible he had another think about it and decided against it.

Anyway, we have only heard Hargreaves side to that story so it's difficult to come to any conclusion on it.

Not that it's overly relevant anyway, just people should wait until it's a fact that United outrightly rejected the offer before giving credit to Hargreaves on it.

killwill

newballsplease wrote: »

doesnt matter what i think. If he thinks he can, and City think he can.... then thats all that matters really.
To say hes moving for the money tho is bull. He lives in Manchester for one...

How much time has he spent in Manchester in the last 3yrs?

SlickRic

i don't expect any Utd fan to wish him well.

like i wouldn't have expected anyone to guilt trip me into wishing Mickey Owen well.

but like that deal, all i'd expect from Utd fans is to understand why he'd move, because the reasons are fairly obvious.

killwill

Your Airbag wrote: »

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

Good luck or bad luck?

POSSY

newballsplease wrote: »

doesnt matter what i think. If he thinks he can, and City think he can.... then thats all that matters really.
To say hes moving for the money tho is bull. He lives in Manchester for one...

He wanted to play for UTD for free, probably to get a chance to prove himself to a club that invested a lot of resources, financial and otherwise, in him.

He wasn't going to have the same sentiment for any club apart from UTD. If the lad really thinks he's gonna break into the City starting XI with the talent they have then he's an idiot, and if he really wanted to actually play football he could have gone to teams like WBA or Everton where he would have got plenty of playing time and been a major part of the team.

smokedeels

I don't want him to win anything as a City player but I hope that's due to our players successes and not his failures.

killwill

G.K. wrote: »

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

Yes.

newballsplease

killwill wrote: »

How much time has he spent in Manchester in the last 3yrs?

Im not his Mother!!

IamtheWalrus

I agree. The boy's playing career is over. I can see him making one comeback attempt, getting crocked and hanging up his boots.

killwill

Blatter wrote: »

I still hold the exact same stance as Mitch.

I won't be ever wishing him well, no way. And nor should I be guilt tripped into doing so. He's joined a rival, and if you wish one of their players well, you are indirectly(whether you like it or not) wishing the rival well also.

And to those saying United turned down his offer to play for free. That's not all that clear cut my any stretch.

What supposedly happend was, Hargreaves offered and the club said 'You don't really want to do that, do you?' That, to me, could be the club saying 'are you sure you want to do this?'. Hargreaves himself said the club were right and he 'probably wouldn't want to play for free'.

So claims of an outright rejection from United are not known to be correct. If Hargreaves had come back and said 'yeah, I'm sure I want to do this', United could well have accepted. It is quite possible he had another think about it and decided against it.

Anyway, we have only heard Hargreaves side to that story so it's difficult to come to any conclusion on it.

Not that it's overly relevant anyway, just people should wait until it's a fact that United outrightly rejected the offer before giving credit to Hargreaves on it.

Incaase that is missed by anybody.

syngindub

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I agree. The boy's playing career is over. I can see him making one comeback attempt, getting crocked and hanging up his boots.

yeah, this is the most likely scenario alright.

Jax Teller

Vanbis wrote: »

I can understand the point your making. I certainly don't want him to be successful with City or them for that fact but i don't understand why anyone would not like to see him back playing every week and if that happens to be with City so what. It doesn't mean i will be cheering him on when they play. Not a chance.

Nail on the head for me .

dahat

I reckon Rooney will crease him in the derby match in October!!!

killwill

newballsplease wrote: »

Im not his Mother!!

Then why claim he lives there. He owns a house there, very different!

SK1979

SlickRic wrote: »

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.

Wouldn't be so sure about that.



But in all seriousness, I have a feeling that we might hear a few more details come out of the club in the next few days if Hargreaves does sign for City. There are whispers of a falling out with SAF etc. We'll see.

PHB

I do wish him well, even though he's going to City. He's done all he could for United, United didn't want him. That was our choice, and there was nothing stopping us from keeping him. He's now moved on, to a smaller club, so good luck to him. It makes sense for him to choose a club that has a better chance of challenging for trophies, and he's a ****ing cracking player if he can get going, and would imo instantly become their first choice defensive midfielder.

It would upset me if it ended up that he was able to get fit and then become a big part of their team, not because it wouldn't be good for him, but because it would show a fairly shocking lack of judgement by the United management to let him go, especially since we had no intention of replacing him it seems.

Either way, I wish him all the personal success at City. Hopefully it leads to no trophies, but with him being their player of the season.

smokedeels

dahat wrote: »

I reckon Rooney will crease him in the derby match in October!!!

Rooney nearly made the jump across the City himself... and now he's going to sort the "traitor" out, is he?

newballsplease

killwill wrote: »

Then why claim he lives there. He owns a house there, very different!

so he doesnt live in Manchester?!! wtf are you on about?

dahat

smokedeels wrote: »

Rooney nearly made the jump across the City himself... and now he's going to sort the "traitor" out, is he?

Fair point well made Jimbo.....I didn't use the word traitor nor hint at it.......
Leave him do as he wishes,free agent he is,how fit he is remains to be seen.
1 thing for sure his medical won't be done in 1 day

PHB

smokedeels wrote: »

Rooney nearly made the jump across the City himself... and now he's going to sort the "traitor" out, is he?

lol.

If Rooney was going to leave, it wasn't going to be to City. It was going to be to either Madrid or Barca, probably Madrid so he could re-ignite his partnership with Madrid. The idea that he'd actually join City is laughable.

adox

PHB wrote: »

lol.

If Rooney was going to leave, it wasn't going to be to City. It was going to be to either Madrid or Barca, probably Madrid so he could re-ignite his partnership with Madrid. The idea that he'd actually join City is laughable.

You may think Madrid are a one man team but theres no need to call Ronaldo Madrid.:pac:

newballsplease

PHB wrote: »

lol.

If Rooney was going to leave, it wasn't going to be to City. It was going to be to either Madrid or Barca, probably Madrid so he could re-ignite his partnership with Madrid. The idea that he'd actually join City is laughable.

its laughable?? why is that? This is the same man that had an affair with a HO when his wife was pregnant?

Or the boy that claimed ''once a blue,allways a blue''?

I wouldnt have been shocked to see him join City.

RasTa

newballsplease wrote: »

Or the boy that claimed ''once a blue,allways a blue''?

He is still an Everton fan.

Jax Teller

killwill wrote: »

Then why claim he lives there. He owns a house there, very different!

Why was he away from Manchester ? Because he was getting treatment from the worlds best to try get him back playing . He would have been in Manchester for the most part the last 4 year otherwise .


Does he even live in Manchester its prob cheshire ? Doesn't matter either way , point is he doesn't have to change house

bucketybuck

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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

"Busted his ass for two years to try and get fit and then offered to play for free, obviously does not want United to do well".

Nah, that doesn't make sense to me either.

Some of the crap posted here reminds me of nothing so much as an abusive boyfriend dumping a girl but telling her, "I don't want you, you are dumped. But even though I dumped you, you had better not be going with any good looking fellas, you hear? You can go with some ugly bloke if you like, but you better not go near anybody from this area."

The minute United dumped Hargreaves all you twelve year old so-called "fans" lost any right whatsoever to criticise what he does or where he goes. Its bloody pathetic some of the crap being spouted here.

SlickRic

PHB wrote: »

lol.

If Rooney was going to leave, it wasn't going to be to City. It was going to be to either Madrid or Barca, probably Madrid so he could re-ignite his partnership with Madrid. The idea that he'd actually join City is laughable.

that's an interesting attempt at re-writing history.

for all intents and purposes, City made the only inquiry of note, and not long after, Rooney put in the transfer request.

also, you'll know what Rooney threatened to do, just by the way in which a lot of Utd supporters have not, and will never, totally forgive him.

PHB

newballsplease wrote: »

I wouldnt have been shocked to see him join City.

I would be. Just like I'd be shocked to see C. Ronaldo join City. Why? Because everybody will pay them a ****load of money, the only question is how many trophies they win. You think Madrid wouldn't match anything City offered? And even if they didn't, City just aren't in the same league, and won't be, for some time. It'll be at least 2-3 years before they are good enough to come close to winning the Champions League. Wasted time.

He was moving for ambition. Because United weren't spending and fixing the problems in their team. Fergie assured him that was the case, and he stayed. Frankly if you think he'd move to City for money, I think you've got a very low opinion of his desire to win.

smokedeels

PHB wrote: »

He was moving for ambition. Because United weren't spending and fixing the problems in their team. Fergie assured him that was the case, and he stayed. Fergie assured him that was the case, and he stayed.

On an increased salary.

Wolfe Tone

POSSY wrote: »

IMO with the squad City have he's looking at FA Cup, CC and a few games agains bottom of the league teams. If he'd gone to a club like WBA he would have been in with a shout of playing consistently and getting to play a genuine part in the team.

I don't know why City fans are getting offended that Utd fans think he's doing it just for the money, if anything it should be a complement that I don't think he's going to be near good enough to get in your team!

I'm a Utd fan!

PHB

smokedeels wrote: »

On an increased salary.

Of course for an increased salary. What's the point? That because he took a raise he is absolutely only interested in money?

smokedeels

PHB wrote: »

Of course for an increased salary. What's the point? That because he took a raise he is absolutely only interested in money?

A raise is standard enough in a new contract, but by some reports the club Joey Squeaking Utensil his earnings, so personally I think he seen what Yaya Toure was earning at City and fancied a piece of that.

Your Airbag

smokedeels wrote: »

Rooney nearly made the jump across the City himself... and now he's going to sort the "traitor" out, is he?

He said City was never an option. I think he said no other English team was an option. It had to be a move abroad or nothing.

smokedeels

Your Airbag wrote: »

He said City was never an option. I think he said no other English team was an option. It had to be a move abroad or nothing.

source?

Your Airbag

smokedeels wrote: »

source?

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Football-News/2010/Nov/Rooney-City-was-never-an-option.aspx

Good enough for you?

PHB

smokedeels wrote: »

A raise is standard enough in a new contract, but by some reports the club Joey Squeaking Utensil his earnings, so personally I think he seen what Yaya Toure was earning at City and fancied a piece of that.

Sure. I don't dispute that he wanted a higher salary, everyone always does. But I'm not sure what the point is?

Mikeyt086

smokedeels wrote: »

On an increased salary.

The way he has started this season he is still underpaid.

Mitch Connor

bucketybuck wrote: »

"Busted his ass for two years to try and get fit and then offered to play for free, obviously does not want United to do well".

He is going to be playing for City. His goal will be to win the league, the champions league etc. United doing well will mean City do not win those trophies so he simply can't want United to do well. I don't see how he can possibly want United to do well. Same as I can't possibly see why Tevez, Silva, Aguero, Milner, Toure etc would want United to do well. Same way I can't possibly see why Rooney, Chico, Welbeck, Young, Jones etc want City to do well.

Jones may want Blackburn to do well, as them doing well is staying up - not winning the league. De Gea may want At.Madrid to do well cause them doing well has virtually no impact at all on United. They won't want a title or champions league rival to do well.

EDIT: Also, your last sentence is interesting. You say once United cut ties with him, we (as fans) lost the right to criticise him - yet we retain the obligation to wish him well? Is that not contradictory?

smokedeels

Your Airbag wrote: »

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Football-News/2010/Nov/Rooney-City-was-never-an-option.aspx

Good enough for you?

Nope, it's after the events and published on the club's website. It's a PR exercise.

PHB wrote: »

Sure. I don't dispute that he wanted a higher salary, everyone always does. But I'm not sure what the point is?

The timeline of events and the out-come. I believe he was not only wrong but disingenuous when he questioned the clubs ability to win trophies, I'm sure his ideal outcome was to stay at United at City style wages but I don't doubt for a moment that he would have moved there to get them had we not given in to his demands.

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

The way he has started this season he is still underpaid.

That's a valid point