Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - Mod Note in OP, 25/08

Copper_pipe

KH25 wrote: »

So...any rumours at all on any other signings?

Vidal on a 2 year contract with Vodafone

MagicMarker

Rojo: I will give everything for United

Marcos Rojo gave his exclusive first interview to MUTV, saying that he has joined the world's biggest club and promises to give everything on the pitch...

Welcome to Manchester United. How does it feel to be here and to be signing for this club?
Thanks very much. I'm very happy as this is a big step forward in my career and it's amazing to be joining the biggest club in the world.

What do you know about the club, the history, the players?
I know a lot about the club because I always follow the Premier League and Manchester United were always my team because they were the biggest and the best. Juan Sebastian Veron played for United and was a great player and I always watched his progress. United were always my club.

There has been a lot of talk and speculation about the move. How have the last few days been for you?
It's taken a while for everything to get sorted out because these transfers can be very difficult, but I'm so happy to be here at Manchester United.

How did you feel when you heard for the first time that Louis van Gaal wanted to sign you?
It was unbelievable. We played against his team in the World Cup and they were excellent. When I heard that he wanted me to come here I was very happy but also very proud and very excited to get an opportunity at a club like this.

What do you think your best qualities are as a footballer?
I always give everything I have in a game and I leave everything out there on the pitch. I play each game as if it could be my last. That's the most important thing in my philosophy.

What do you think you can achieve here, with the team and also on a personal level?
I think the most important thing is that I keep growing as a player and keep improving. I have worked really hard for this opportunity and now I am at the biggest club in the world and I want to win trophies.

Finally, there are a lot of people here at the club now who can speak Spanish so that should help you settle in and get used to your new surroundings...
Absolutely, that will certainly help me as I get used to life in this country and will help me get settled into the team as quickly as possible.

I love the guy's enthusiasm, could be a fan favourite.

homerjay2005

RayCun wrote: »

yAnd that money they took out caused higher ticket prices

sorry to just pick one point out of your post and ignore the rest of it(as i hate when people do it to me) but just on this part - ticket prices at Old trafford are really reasonable and i see this pop up alot - its a massive myth IMO.

i pay £28 a game and have had the tickets almost 7 years now - they were £25 when we got them, thats a £3 increase in 6 years. i remember my first tickets to Old trafford and other grounds were £25+ 12 years ago.

there are sections that pay £51 in the main stands, but again the increases are relative to prices when they took over and more to the point, relative to the rise in other clubs.

the prices that Arsenal, QPR, Chelsea and Spurs fans pay are just insane and on a different level to ours. City tickets are not much cheaper than ours.

aligator_am

Wonder if Wilson will get a run out in the coming games? I was hoping he'd come on at half time against Swansea but forced substitution of Lingard snookered that.

elchupanebrey

RayCun wrote: »

net spend in the years before they took over

04/05 21m (including Rooney)
03/04 13m
02/03 27m
01/02 29m
00/01 -8m
99/00 16m

average 16m a year

In the years after they took over

05/06 1m
06/07 4m
07/08 26m
08/09 33m
09/10 -64m
10/11 13m
11/12 38m

average just over 7m a year

and then consider inflation, and look at what the competition was spending in the same period...

Are 12/13 and 13/14 not part of the "after they took over" section

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Throw up a gross spend there.


I could paint a picture saying since the glazers have come in we have been getting more money for selling our players. Aren't they great.

But you went for the opposite.

Put up a gross spend and stop twisting stats to suit yourself.

01-02 - £57M
02 - 03 - £29M
03 - 04 - £53.5M
04 - 05 - £27

the glazer period

05 - 06 - £19.5m
06 -07 - *£18.5m
07 - 08 - £61m
08 - 09 - £35
09 - 10 - £21
10 - 11 - £27
11 - 12 - £52
12 - 13 - £63
13 - 14 - £67

There's your gross. Doesn't make great reading even at face value. Now take into account inflation, and the way transfer fees have sky rocketed in recent years, it does not look good at all.

The Moldy Gowl

redbaron_99 wrote: »

Works of art can cost hundreds of millions.
Explain this success they have had, please. Just do me that one small favour.

They way I see it, they borrowed heavily to buy a solid, successful football club. Heaped debt onto that club. The hard work of many at the club, and the genius that is Sir Alex achieved the success. They sat back and sucked the blood from the club. Our success was stunted because of them. We were the top club in Europe a few years ago, and we were spending like Newcastle.

You have been reading too many of the horror stories. Surely after this summer, you know to not trust the media on these things.

Our success???

Jesus, I actually can't remember the last time we won a trophy or dominated the league and almost winning it 3 seasons in a row only to lose out by a goal.

The 3 cl finals? Nope, can't remember that.

Having the biggest deal in the world? Nope, not us.


Money had always been available. It's not the glazers fault fergie spent it on Liam miller and co.

Money has never been a problem. Do you think that maybe the spending could be down to fergie thinking that his team that is dominating the English league didn't always need 80 odd million of investment every year.

He had a winning formula. Why would he change?

Adamocovic

KH25 wrote: »

So...any rumours at all on any other signings?

Rumours being rumours I wouldn't read too much into them, but some are linking us with Fredy Guarin and Nicolas Gaitan.

MagicMarker

aligator_am wrote: »

Wonder if Wilson will get a run out in the coming games? I was hoping he'd come on at half time against Swansea but forced substitution of Lingard snookered that.

That would have been impressive considering he wasn't even on the bench.

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Ya. I agree with that. They did it for money, of course.

But also made us successful.


They did both.

I'm not a big fan of oil money being poured in, but the glazers worked hard, rather than throwing money

HOW???

Mikeyt086

Zico wrote: »

Giving Rojo the No.5 suggests there won't another more experienced defender signed in this window.

The thought of Jonny Evans leading the defence isn't exactly filling me with confidence.

I hope Rojo is bloody amazing.

No it doesn't. It suggests Marcos Rojo wanted number 5.

Would they really say "Sorry Marcos, but we're actually hoping to bring in a proper big defender soon, so if you could go a bit higher that would be great. I think 17 is free?"

aligator_am

MagicMarker wrote: »

That would have been impressive considering he wasn't even on the bench.

, I could have sworn he was, was sure I saw his name in the on screen graphics on BT Sports.

Edit: Yeah you're right, just checked it there.

homerjay2005

aligator_am wrote: »

Wonder if Wilson will get a run out in the coming games? I was hoping he'd come on at half time against Swansea but forced substitution of Lingard snookered that.

he is injured at the moment unfortunately. hopefully will be back for the MK dons game.

he deserves his chance.

Will I Amnt

gosplan wrote: »

No, it's not bargain basement but resale potential always seems to be key.

I get that Rojo and Shaw might be amazing and are costing a fair bit but they're what 19 and 24?

I think this is a key factor in their thinking.

BTW I think this isn't a bad way to go with defenders but will rarely deliver a title winning team in terms of midfield and attack. Special talent costs and you can't expect to unearth enough special 20 year olds.

I still can't agree on your thinking that United are buying young players in the hope they will make big money on them in the future.
If you could show me some examples?

Rojo, Shaw, Hererra, Mata and Fellaini?
They all cost big money, they just don't fit that motive.

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

You have been reading too many of the horror stories. Surely after this summer, you know to not trust the media on these things.

Our success???

Jesus, I actually can't remember the last time we won a trophy or dominated the league and almost winning it 3 seasons in a row only to lose out by a goal.

The 3 cl finals? Nope, can't remember that.

Having the biggest deal in the world? Nope, not us.


Money had always been available. It's not the glazers fault fergie spent it on Liam miller and co.

Money has never been a problem. Do you think that maybe the spending could be down to fergie thinking that his team that is dominating the English league didn't always need 80 odd million of investment every year.

He had a winning formula. Why would he change?

The on-field success had f*ck all to do with the Glazers. Did they make a large financial investment that led to this success???????? no.

That team was developing at United before the Glazers ever stuck their noses into Old Trafford.

RayCun

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Throw up a gross spend there.


I could paint a picture saying since the glazers have come in we have been getting more money for selling our players. Aren't they great.

But you went for the opposite.

Put up a gross spend and stop twisting stats to suit yourself.

That would be a ridiculous argument to make, because everyone knows the Glazers are not involved in negotiating player sales. The net figures are more important than the gross because net will show you budget constraints, gross won't. Spurs spent a lot of money on players last year because they made a lot on sales, not because of massive investment

Pro. F

It's good to see the proper numbers being taken. 5, a good solid number.

The Moldy Gowl

redbaron_99 wrote: »

01-02 - £57M
02 - 03 - £29M
03 - 04 - £53.5M
04 - 05 - £27

the glazer period

05 - 06 - £19.5m
06 -07 - *£18.5m
07 - 08 - £61m
08 - 09 - £35
09 - 10 - £21
10 - 11 - £27
11 - 12 - £52
12 - 13 - £63
13 - 14 - £67

There's your gross. Doesn't make great reading even at face value. Now take into account inflation, and the way transfer fees have sky rocketed in recent years, it does not look good at all.

Another 80 million this year.

Thanks for that.

But could that be because we were the most dominant team which didn't need much investment aside from a few players, because we already had our team created.

Like in 08 we won the cl.


But the early 00s we were awful?

I think everyone has their mind made up and the glazers are an easy target

RayCun

elchupanebrey wrote: »

Are 12/13 and 13/14 not part of the "after they took over" section

Of course they are. But look at the six years before compared to the six years after and tell me you can't see a massive hole in the club finances

The Moldy Gowl

redbaron_99 wrote: »

HOW???

Sorry, continued and expanded our commercial off field success.

If you're gonna argue we aren't successful off the field, you should leave.

BloodBath

RayCun wrote: »

net spend in the years before they took over

04/05 21m (including Rooney)
03/04 13m
02/03 27m
01/02 29m
00/01 -8m
99/00 16m

average 16m a year

In the years after they took over

05/06 1m
06/07 4m
07/08 26m
08/09 33m
09/10 -64m
10/11 13m
11/12 38m

average just over 7m a year

and then consider inflation, and look at what the competition was spending in the same period...

Interesting that you leave out the most recent years and don't mention that we have the highest net spend in the premier league this year so far.

For the years you left out or got wrong.

Season Net Spend

14/15 64m (so far)
13/14 67m
12/13 51m
11/12 38m
10/11 13m
09/10 -64m
08/09 33m
07/08 26m
06/07 4m
05/06 1m

Average 16.6m

Not that any of that means anything since average spend does not equate to improving a team. Look at chelsea this season getting 50m for David Luiz which almost covered the cost of Fabregas and Costa alone. These figures would almost cancel themselves out making the net spend look low while they massively improved their team.

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Another 80 million this year.

Thanks for that.

But could that be because we were the most dominant team which didn't need much investment aside from a few players, because we already had our team created.

Like in 08 we won the cl.


But the early 00s we were awful?

I think everyone has their mind made up and the glazers are an easy target

My point wasn't even about transfers. It was about the way they acquired the club. The gamble, the debt. But the transfer figures actually back up my view on the glazers.

You, on the other hand, are twisting everything in a vain attempt to suit your support of them. What if this... what if that...


Anyway, happy Rojo day to you all.

The Moldy Gowl

RayCun wrote: »

That would be a ridiculous argument to make, because everyone knows the Glazers are not involved in negotiating player sales. The net figures are more important than the gross because net will show you budget constraints, gross won't. Spurs spent a lot of money on players last year because they made a lot on sales, not because of massive investment

No. We brought players in, we let some go? Do you want us to have a squad of 100 players?

Did the glazers tell fergie to sell Ronald's because we had to make a profit that year?

RayCun

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Money has never been a problem. Do you think that maybe the spending could be down to fergie thinking that his team that is dominating the English league didn't always need 80 odd million of investment every year.

He had a winning formula. Why would he change?

Seriously, are you 12?
Because the winning formula Ferguson had up until the takeover was to build strength on strength. He never let the team stand still, he was always looking to improve it. When united were winning the treble, when united were winning three years in a row, he kept buying to stay on top. And then all of a sudden he stopped buying, and this was a coincidence?

The Moldy Gowl

redbaron_99 wrote: »

My point wasn't even about transfers. It was about the way they acquired the club. The gamble, the debt. But the transfer figures actually back up my view on the glazers.

You, on the other hand, are twisting everything in a vain attempt to suit your support of them. What if this... what if that...


Anyway, happy Rojo day to you all.

Ya you're right. It has come full circle and everything has been said.

I wish you the rojoist of Wednesdays and many happy rojorns

2moreMinutes

Who would we have bought if the Glazers didn't get involved and we had all these billions of dollars/euros/pounds just sitting in our credit union account over the last number of years?

The Moldy Gowl

RayCun wrote: »

Seriously, are you 12?
Because the winning formula Ferguson had up until the takeover was to build strength on strength. He never let the team stand still, he was always looking to improve it. When united were winning the treble, when united were winning three years in a row, he kept buying to stay on top. And then all of a sudden he stopped buying, and this was a coincidence?

Ya. He did. By tweaking the team that were dominanting.

No need for massive transfers. Although they would have been nice.

I'm gonna throw out a FIFA/fm manager thing now and I don't care what ye think of me for doing it.
After a few seasons when I hve my team built, I rarely do big transfers.

Just fresh faces ad younger prospects to compliment the team and to replace the old lads.

Pro. F

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Sorry, continued and expanded our commercial off field success.

If you're gonna argue we aren't successful off the field, you should leave.

The Glazers expanding our commercial earnings did not make us more successful on the pitch. It covered the debt repayments they lumped on the club, and didn't even cover that fully since they still had to sell 10% of the club to make it all work.

redbaron_99

2moreMinutes wrote: »

Who would we have bought if the Glazers didn't get involved and we had all these billions of dollars/euros/pounds just sitting in our credit union account over the last number of years?

I thought that would be obvious: Lee Cattermole

secman

bucketybuck wrote: »

I hope Nani tears it up over there and then sticks two fingers up to his detractors.

Judging by his recent performances its highly unlikely...SAF and LVG saw something that we didn't, maybe its his attitude ? There is no doubts about his ability, but his application of it.

RayCun

BloodBath wrote: »

Interesting that you leave out the most recent years and don't mention that we have the highest net spend in the premier league this year so

.

I left out the last few years because
The commercial deals are starting to digg us out of the debt hole, making more money available
Ferguson retiring forced the owners to put money in

what is interesting is that even when you add those years in, you get an average spend the same as the club was spending before the Glazer takeover, and that was ten years ago when there was a lot less money in the league

The Moldy Gowl

RayCun wrote: »

I left out the last few years because
The commercial deals are starting to digg us out of the debt hole, making more money available
Ferguson retiring forced the owners to put money in

what is interesting is that even when you add those years in, you get an average spend the same as the club was spending before the Glazer takeover, and that was ten years ago when there was a lot less money in the league

Well the average would stay the same as the price of players increases across the board, not just is buying players. We would get higher a fees for our players?

DM_7

Rojo deal done. Good news

Onto the next one now. At least one more is needed. Probably two.

RayCun

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

No. We brought players in, we let some go? Do you want us to have a squad of 100 players?

Did the glazers tell fergie to sell Ronald's because we had to make a profit that year?

No, but they didn't give him the money to invest in the team, and there was a period off several years where Ferguson was clearly constrained in who he could buy. The man who broke several transfer records started to talk about a lack of value in the market for Fuchs sake

RayCun

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Well the average would stay the same as the price of players increases across the board, not just is buying players. We would get higher a fees for our players?

That is not how inflation works

ericzeking

Will we be doing our own version of the Toure No limits song?

Ro ro, ro ro ro ro, ro ro ro ro ro, Ro ro ro ro ro ro....Marcos Rojo...

The Moldy Gowl

RayCun wrote: »

No, but they didn't give him the money to invest in the team, and there was a period off several years where Ferguson was clearly constrained in who he could buy. The man who broke several transfer records started to talk about a lack of value in the market for Fuchs sake

Maybe you are holding him in too much esteem? Maybe he genuinely thought so and could get a cheaper better player elsewhere?

Maybe you are right, maybe I'm right.

No one in any official capacity has said they have been holding back money.

BloodBath

RayCun wrote: »

I left out the last few years because
The commercial deals are starting to digg us out of the debt hole, making more money available
Ferguson retiring forced the owners to put money in

what is interesting is that even when you add those years in, you get an average spend the same as the club was spending before the Glazer takeover, and that was ten years ago when there was a lot less money in the league

As Fergie said teams move in cycles. We didn't need to spend big at times. If you were to remove the first 2 years when we had a packed squad and only net transfers of 1 and 4 million then the average would be 28.8m.

The Ronaldo fee also massively skews this data. There are not many clubs in the world who spend that kind of money and sales likes those are extreme rarities for only a handful of amazing players in the world.

If you were to remove this as well the average would be 42m.

It has been confirmed that we have been in for many big players as well. The money is there to spend.

The failings lie elsewhere.

RayCun

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Maybe you are holding him in too much esteem? Maybe he genuinely thought so and could get a cheaper better player elsewhere?

Maybe you are right, maybe I'm right.

No one in any official capacity has said they have been holding back money.

Sweet baba jay...

Take five minutes to look at the history of the club. Look at the transfers Ferguson made every year. Look at the dramatic change in policy after the takeover. If you can't see it for yourself then there is no argument I can make that is any clearer

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Ya. He did. By tweaking the team that were dominanting.

No need for massive transfers. Although they would have been nice.

I'm gonna throw out a FIFA/fm manager thing now and I don't care what ye think of me for doing it.
After a few seasons when I hve my team built, I rarely do big transfers.

Just fresh faces ad younger prospects to compliment the team and to replace the old lads.

Dear Lord...

Edit: Dear Lord... I wasted time actually trying to clue you in to reality.

The Moldy Gowl

redbaron_99 wrote: »

Dear Lord...

Edit: Dear Lord... I wasted time actually trying to clue you in to reality.

Yup. Don't even care.

My point was, when you have a squad that is winning like fergie did there isn't that big a need to overhaul the squad.


Obviously I know comparing FIFA and fm have absolutely sweet fa to do with real life.

I just don't think there was a new to be spending 60 odd million every year.

Copper_pipe

Rojo row your boat,
Gently down the stream,
Gerrard's won the Premier League,
In his fxcking dreams.

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Yup. Don't even care.

My point was, when you have a squad that is winning like fergie did there isn't that big a need to overhaul the squad.


Obviously I know comparing FIFA and fm have absolutely sweet fa to do with real life.

I just don't think there was a new to be spending 60 odd million every year.

Dear Lord...

Edit: Dear Lord... I can't actually believe you're still digging...

Quandary

The united squad has been badly neglected for years. Mainly in midfield. We relied far too long on Scholes and Giggs. Fletcher now being relied upon despite being severely ill for years. We really have no guarantee that he will ever get back to his previous levels. Carrick is now 33, is injured at the moment and his injuries are not going to lessen as he gets older. Cleverley just doesn't inspire me with any confidence. He's 25 now and has gone backwards over the last few years. I had quiet hopes that Fellaini might improve under LVG but this injury is like a nail in his Utd coffin.

We desperately need another midfielder to partner Herrera. Vidal of course would be amazing, but there are a hell of a lot of players out there who would massively improve our midfield.

Our midfield is so weak that it can't be hard to significantly improve it.

It's the main area of the first team that I am hugely worried about.

Zico

Rojo rake your boot
gently down their shins
Yellow cards, red cards, 3 match bans
just like our Roy Keane.

Your Airbag

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Ya. He did. By tweaking the team that were dominanting.

No need for massive transfers. Although they would have been nice.

I'm gonna throw out a FIFA/fm manager thing now and I don't care what ye think of me for doing it.
After a few seasons when I hve my team built, I rarely do big transfers.

Just fresh faces ad younger prospects to compliment the team and to replace the old lads.

I didn't do any big tansfers after my first season on FIFA. Might have been down to me signing Zlantan, Ronaldo, Suraez, Hazard, Kroos and Pirlo in my first two windows though.

thelad95

Zico wrote: »

Rojo rake your boot
gently down their shins
Yellow cards, red cards, 3 match bans
just like our Roy Keane.

Doesn't work.

redbaron_99

Adamocovic

I know it would be a lousy chant but from now on when I hear this song instead of hearing the "Whoah, oh oh oh oh" I can't get "Rooojo, rojo, rojo" out of my head. Ha every time I hear that song I'm going to think of Rojo now!

The bit starts at around 0:20

RobbingBandit

thelad95 wrote: »

Doesn't work.

In order for a football fan chant to work it must slander a rival team/player and or be slightly racist in nature. Thems the rules we must follow in this thing of ours.