Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2015 Mod Note Post #2331

Mitch Connor

Coat22 wrote: »

Things weren't ok in November though - we were in the mix by pure luck and the damage had already been done in the CL.

I agree - and argued it at the time - but there are plenty who simply looked at the results rather than performances and the fact we were still in the CL and argued things were fine and it was all about results at the moment, while all these new players bedded in. As i said in my post - it was arguably ok. People are still arguing that everything is basically ok and people saying LVG should be sacked are only doing so on the back of a couple of poor results.

bucketybuck

Lord TSC wrote: »

There's a few users who want to try and dominate the thread by throwing shots round, and it ends now.

It will be good to see this applied in this thread, this very page in fact.

Maximus Alexander

homerjay2005 wrote: »

take out the sponsorship deal with addidas and chevrolet, Uniteds finances are standard for a business that has 100's of millions of followers and has had a full stadium for the last 20 years.

Why would you take those out though? They're both enormous...

RobertKK

bucketybuck wrote: »

If Van Gaal would pick the best team I don't think Ighalo would play. Of course that also would rely on Van Gaal getting performances from out best players so who knows.

I still don't think we should be setting our sights on whoever is scoring goals this week, as a transfer policy it does nothing for us but fill the squad up with average players we can't get rid off. We do need players but they still should be the right players, bought within the framework of our short and long term goals and targeting Ighalo because he scored a few for Watford seems like it does nothing for us.

Ighalo rejected a move to Atletico Madrid according to multiple reports. They are reported to have offered £12 million for him, but Ighalo said he has already played in Spain and wants to stay in the EPL.

homerjay2005

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Level headed and doomsayer don't usually go hand in hand.

care to explain how somebody questioning Woodward, is "doomsayer".

id like to see your logic on this.

Strumms

Regardless of how we finish the season I don't think it is in our interests to have LVG see out his contract. The best we can really hope for is to qualify for the CL. After all the time and money he has had available to him we are not all of a sudden like a flicked switch going to start to turn it on and play entertaining football and dominating matches and winning game after game. Hope that behind the scenes we are working on a plan to bring in a younger enthusiastic manager like Pep who views the game in a more modern light and who will be less set in their ways and stubborn when it comes to change. LVG has made too many bad decisions tactically in games as well as squad management.

As I said before... Previous success is what gets you the job not what should keep you in it when you haven't delivered.

Flint Fredstone

homerjay2005 wrote: »

care to explain how somebody questioning Woodward, is "doomsayer".

id like to see your logic on this.

Isn't Andersred the same guy that was telling us the club would cease to exist by now?

Isn't Andersred the same guy that had to write an apology to Fergie for jumping to conclusions and implicating him in some fabricated nonsense?

Doesn't sound very level headed to me.

Giggsy11

RobertKK wrote: »

Odion Ighalo has said he doesn't think he will be moving but would find it very hard to say no if United called.
He says United was his team growing up and his idols were Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke, and that playing at Old Trafford has always been his dream.

I would not be unhappy if he joined, a very natural goal scorer, reminds me of his idol Andy Cole.

I like him, he scores and his allround game is very good too. He has pace, good feet and a good finisher. He is physically strong too.

He looks like a late bloomer like Drogba as his goals doesn't look a fluke or just a good run of form but till date his career is bit meh when it comes to goal scoring.

Pro. F

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Isn't Andersred the same guy that was telling us the club would cease to exist by now?

Nope.

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Isn't Andersred the same guy that had to write an apology to Fergie for jumping to conclusions and implicating him in some fabricated nonsense?

Haven't heard about that one so can't say either way.

homerjay2005

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Isn't Andersred the same guy that was telling us the club would cease to exist by now?

nope, i dont think so. i recall him saying many years ago the club was in good health financially, while others were proclaiming we would be the next Leeds United.

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Isn't Andersred the same guy that had to write an apology to Fergie for jumping to conclusions and implicating him in some fabricated nonsense?

care to elaborate? maybe drop him a message and ask him and im sure he will answer you.


he is, despite what you and 1 other poster say, a very very well known, respected and liked supporter of the club.

Mitch Connor

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Why would you take those out though? They're both enormous...

The amount of sponsors is incredible too - the regionalisation of the sponsorship is industry leading from a football perspective. The AON sponsorship of the training ground and gear was also a great piece of business from Woodward/United.

From a commercial point of view, I have nothing but praise for Woodward.

Flint Fredstone

Pro. F wrote: »

Nope

I'm only aware of him because a friend of mine, a Liverpool fan, used to send me links to his stuff in a "your club is going bust" sort of way. If I recall correctly, he backtracked on a lot of what he said.

Apologies for the hyperbole, I do forget you are around to symantically dissect posts.

There's the other thing anyway.

http://andersred.blogspot.ie/2012/08/an-apology-to-sir-alex-and-restatement.html?m=1

Flint Fredstone

homerjay2005 wrote: »

nope, i dont think so. i recall him saying many years ago the club was in good health financially, while others were proclaiming we would be the next Leeds United.




care to elaborate? maybe drop him a message and ask him and im sure he will answer you.


he is, despite what you and 1 other poster say, a very very well known, respected and liked supporter of the club.

I couldn't be arsed dropping him a message, maybe the fact he replied to you before on social media colours your opinion on him?

Me, I'm not so easily impressed.

Your attempt to make it look like only 2 people don't think the sun shines out of his arse is laughable.

Mitch Connor

homerjay2005 wrote: »

nope, i dont think so. i recall him saying many years ago the club was in good health financially, while others were proclaiming we would be the next Leeds United.




care to elaborate? maybe drop him a message and ask him and im sure he will answer you.

Nope, "ANdersred" was certainly one of the main people saying that United were in a very dangerous position with regards to debt due to the Glazers.

And, to be fair, he was very likely correct.

The Glazers gamble untimately paid off and United are now in excellent financial health - which Andersred has admited and analysed; and was one of the first commentators to state this, iirc.

I don't think he has pushed an agenda, to be honest. When he was saying the club was in a dangerous position - I would wager it was. When the TV money exploded even higher, and the commercial deals became record breaking - it changed the financial outlook of the club and in turn changed the opinion and message of Andersred.

If people want to say he was wrong all along because of the end result, then that is a result orientated argument, which is a poor argument. If I bet my life savings on 00 in roulette, it doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid thing to do if it happens to come off. Its not pure luck the Glazers have us in this financial situation, but it was never certain to get to this. There was luck and outside factors alligning for United that they had no control over.

Pro. F

I rate Ighalo, so I'd be interested in the signing, but with two caveats.

Firstly, the price. I'm not sure what good value is these days, but if Watford want crazy money, then just move on.

Secondly, his age. He was born in Nigeria, so can we be certain about his age?

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

I rate Ighalo, so I'd be interested in the signing, but with two caveats.

Firstly, the price. I'm not sure what good value is these days, but if Watford want crazy money, then just move on.

Secondly, his age. He was born in Nigeria, so can we be certain about his age?

I'm interested to know why so? I'm not exactly up to speed on the workings of the birth cert system in that country :P

SantryRed

As a Watford fan, back the **** away from Ighalo lads.

But in all seriousness, I'm starting to think there may be a £12m release clause in his contract, as supposedly that is what was offered by a Chinese club in the summer and he was the one to turn them down. The reason I think there is a release clause is that if there wasn't, there's no way the club would let him go for under £20m. The Pozzo family are building a special club at Watford, and their signings and scouting network (and their history with Granada) suggest they can make Watford a sustainable Premier League club.

homerjay2005

Sport Witness ‏@Sport_Witness 4m4 minutes ago
Nico Gaitan may need a knee operation, bringing further focus on Louis van Gaal overtraining his players.

Pro. F

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I'm only aware of him because a friend of mine, a Liverpool fan, used to send me links to his stuff in a "your club is going bust" sort of way. If I recall correctly, he backtracked on a lot of what he said.

This has been looked into plenty of times. He did not say the club would cease to exist.

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Apologies for the hyperbole, I do forget you are around to symantically dissect posts.

It must be a real chore having to defend the things you say.

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

There's the other thing anyway.

http://andersred.blogspot.ie/2012/08/an-apology-to-sir-alex-and-restatement.html?m=1

Cool.

SantryRed

SantryRed wrote: »

As a Watford fan, back the **** away from Ighalo lads.

But in all seriousness, I'm starting to think there may be a £12m release clause in his contract, as supposedly that is what was offered by a Chinese club in the summer and he was the one to turn them down. The reason I think there is a release clause is that if there wasn't, there's no way the club would let him go for under £20m. The Pozzo family are building a special club at Watford, and their signings and scouting network (and their history with Granada) suggest they can make Watford a sustainable Premier League club.

I don't foresee any issue in utd having 20+ at the ready.

I would be quite pleased with such a price, not that a value of player makes **** of a difference to me.
We all know utd have the spending power.

Coat22

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Green was also mentioning that the influx of cash into the PL is something that isnt getting the attention that it deserves, as its been a real game changer and people are ignoring this - while clubs like United get all the attention for the money they have, the smaller clubs are also doing wonderfully well and power is shifting, despite all the money United have. take out the sponsorship deal with addidas and chevrolet, Uniteds finances are standard for a business that has 100's of millions of followers and has had a full stadium for the last 20 years.

See I don't buy this theory that's been thrown around by everyone to explain why Leicester / Palace / Stoke etc are suddenly decent and the "Big 4" are suddenly so ordinary.

Every single club benefitted from the new TV deal so while Stoke etc got richer so did United etc by the same if not greater amounts. So if normal supply and demand applied the "extra money" would just inflate wages and transfer fees, which it seems to have had. Sure Leicester etc "don't need to sell" now because they are making money on an operating basis without the profit from player sales keeping them afloat but they are still run by businesses who would look to cash in if the right fee came along, no different to last season or the season before.

The rising tide raises all boats - not just the little ones.

The_Kew_Tour

Andersed got few things wrong, but so have I and other posters.

He has plenty of concerns and gave a very detailed account and where club might head back then.

In 2009\2010 I was very concerned about where club was going too. Thankfully, it's never been healthier off field anyway, for now.

Strumms

The success enjoyed on the pitch is ultimately the biggest factor that influences the health off it. The 'global brand' and its value would be the same long term if we stay successful only. If we say ended up going 10 years without a trophy and only flirting with CL qualification there are other clubs who will be more attractive when it comes to sponsors.

Mitch Connor

Coat22 wrote: »

See I don't buy this theory that's been thrown around by everyone to explain why Leicester / Palace / Stoke etc are suddenly decent and the "Big 4" are suddenly so ordinary.

Every single club benefitted from the new TV deal so while Stoke etc got richer so did United etc by the same if not greater amounts. So if normal supply and demand applied the "extra money" would just inflate wages and transfer fees, which it seems to have had. Sure Leicester etc "don't need to sell" now because they are making money on an operating basis without the profit from player sales keeping them afloat but they are still run by businesses who would look to cash in if the right fee came along, no different to last season or the season before.

The rising tide raises all boats - not just the little ones.

Everton rejected 40millon for Stones in the summer - a couple of years ago they'd have sold fr less. The financial strength of the league means a number of things for the 'smaller' clubs.

1. They can pay higher wages and rejected bigger bids for their players while maintaining financial viability - the bigger clubs can't basically bully them into selling their players as easily. This isn't a bad thing.
2. They can pay higher wages and fees than historically bigger clubs throughout europe. Look at West Ham basically bullying Marsaillie into selling Payet to them - that wouldn't have happened a few years ago imo. So the 'smaller' clubs are also able to buy a higher caliber of player from outside of England than they previously could have, in general.

I do think it is also a case that the bigger clubs are simply failing, in various respects, to various degrees - but the financial strengthing of the league is, imo, proportionally better for the smaller clubs that it is for the bigger ones.

Pro. F

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I'm interested to know why so? I'm not exactly up to speed on the workings of the birth cert system in that country :P

Yeah, it's funny what you learn through football. They've just got a history of using bangers in youth tournaments and for players looking to aid their careers with it, and apparently it's quite easy to get fake documents over there. Here's some links.

It's a bit funny, but I don't know if there's much you can do about it from a scouting perspective. They used to use wrist scans for determining age for youth tournaments (I think they may have stopped doing that now), but they're not that reliable apparently.

Giggsy11

https://twitter.com/ManUtd/status/685068437706682368

Official.

K-9

Coat22 wrote: »

See I don't buy this theory that's been thrown around by everyone to explain why Leicester / Palace / Stoke etc are suddenly decent and the "Big 4" are suddenly so ordinary.

Every single club benefitted from the new TV deal so while Stoke etc got richer so did United etc by the same if not greater amounts. So if normal supply and demand applied the "extra money" would just inflate wages and transfer fees, which it seems to have had. Sure Leicester etc "don't need to sell" now because they are making money on an operating basis without the profit from player sales keeping them afloat but they are still run by businesses who would look to cash in if the right fee came along, no different to last season or the season before.

The rising tide raises all boats - not just the little ones.

You still have to spend the money wisely, look at Villa and Newcastle, both spent a fair bit but it hasn't worked out.

The quality of player that these clubs can attract has improved though, Cabaye to Palace an example, plus it is no coincidence that the clubs with good away form are very good counter attacking wise and set up, not just to frustrate the big teans as before, but punish their mistakes as well.

bangkok

Januzaj back from Dortmund. Complete waste of half a season for him.

Your Airbag

Adnan was used a lot early on this season and I thought LvG had plans for him to be a regular first teamer this season, then he strangely loaned him out.

I was all for the loan in pre-season but that was before he got regular time and did quite well. It was a strange one by LvG.

Hopefully Adnan can come back in and play well. Memphis isn't playing well enough atm so it could be a welcome change.

homerjay2005

Strumms wrote: »

The success enjoyed on the pitch is ultimately the biggest factor that influences the health off it. The 'global brand' and its value would be the same long term if we stay successful only. If we say ended up going 10 years without a trophy and only flirting with CL qualification there are other clubs who will be more attractive when it comes to sponsors.

when alot of these big deals were being signed and agreed, Ferguson was still at the helm - the adidas one was 2014 but those negotiations were well underway for years and since 2011/2012 there was talk of a huge potential deal being possible.

i cant imagine too many big deals being signed until the current problems that have been there for several months, disappear.

Mantis Toboggan

Happy to have Jacuzzi back.

bangkok

https://wyscout.com/

Good tool here used by majority of Clubs/agents/scouts etc from all across europe

The_Kew_Tour

Djemba Djemba was meant to be 5 or 6 years older then what he proclaimed true, hence why Fergie was not fan of Africa and lost no sleep over Mikel.

Now its only rumour, however true it is only people who know will know truth, it could be just gossip overdrive too.

bangkok

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Djemba Djemba was meant to be 5 or 6 years older then what he proclaimed true, hence why Fergie was not fan of Africa and lost no sleep over Mikel.

Now its only rumour, however true it is only people who know will know truth, it could be just gossip overdrive too.

Mikel was a great deal for us. £12m and he never even played a game for us

TheDoc

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I'm interested to know why so? I'm not exactly up to speed on the workings of the birth cert system in that country :P

Most clubs denote concern and initiate some alternative checks to verify the age of players from certain regions, most notably African countries. Birth certs can be frequently forged and doctored by individuals there in order to get their players moves to Europe etc.

Every few months there is a new player that emerges to be older then they are. Was only reading one recently where the players birth cert had a date on it, four years after the hospital in question was demolished.

bangkok

TheDoc wrote: »

Most clubs denote concern and initiate some alternative checks to verify the age of players from certain regions, most notably African countries. Birth certs can be frequently forged and doctored by individuals there in order to get their players moves to Europe etc.

Every few months there is a new player that emerges to be older then they are. Was only reading one recently where the players birth cert had a date on it, four years after the hospital in question was demolished.

never happens, sure this lad is only 17 :pac:

Blatter

Andersred was generally fairly good for analysing FINANCIAL matters although I always felt he had an anti Glazer bias. (For example, back around 5 years ago he would consistently compare United's transfer spend with City/Chelsea in a negative light but would almost ignore the importance of the wage bill, where United happened to be quite competitive.) But overall he was definitely worth a read here.

In terms of FOOTBALL opinions, I don't believe he came across as especially knowledgeable at all and again I think his views were influenced by an anti Glazer bias. Iirc he was one of the people who thinks Moyes was left with an average squad in 2013 and Fergie had managed to turn water into wine by winning the league with them by 11 points in the previous season.

The distinction between financial and football matters is important here and its why I wouldn't put any weight behind his views on how Woodward is running the football side of things.

Coat22

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Everton rejected 40millon for Stones in the summer - a couple of years ago they'd have sold fr less. The financial strength of the league means a number of things for the 'smaller' clubs.

1. They can pay higher wages and rejected bigger bids for their players while maintaining financial viability - the bigger clubs can't basically bully them into selling their players as easily. This isn't a bad thing.
2. They can pay higher wages and fees than historically bigger clubs throughout europe. Look at West Ham basically bullying Marsaillie into selling Payet to them - that wouldn't have happened a few years ago imo. So the 'smaller' clubs are also able to buy a higher caliber of player from outside of England than they previously could have, in general.

I do think it is also a case that the bigger clubs are simply failing, in various respects, to various degrees - but the financial strengthing of the league is, imo, proportionally better for the smaller clubs that it is for the bigger ones.

That's correct in terms of versus European clubs but not in terms of other PL clubs.

So Stones didn't go for £40M - maybe £60M would have persuaded Everton. Maybe £100M is the new £20M. Maybe £300k a week is the new £100k a week but there are still few clubs that could afford to pay it.

The samller clubs can pay higher wages and afford higher fees now but so too the bigger clubs can now pay even higher wages and afford even higher transfer fees.

homerjay2005

Blatter wrote: »

Iirc he was one of the people who thinks Moyes was left with an average squad in 2013 and Fergie had managed to turn water into wine by winning the league with them by 11 points in the previous season.

would you not agree, that this was an assertion that happens to be correct?

Blatter

homerjay2005 wrote: »

would you not agree, that this was an assertion that happens to be correct?

No. I'd hold an opinion close to the opposite end of the spectrum and outlined why a few times.

J. Marston

Wiki says he's 26. Looks like he's in his 20's.

Sign him up.

homerjay2005

Blatter wrote: »

No. I'd hold an opinion close to the opposite end of the spectrum and outlined why a few times.

i could have sworn you were one of the many posters on here who said for many years our squad quality was decreasing rapidly every year and we were barely hanging in there at the top.

there is no doubt, that Fergie team needed massive investment though i dont think its as bad as whats happened since shows - i.e. ~25 of that squad f*cked out by LVG. the fact that almost the entire squad was thrown out, says alot though that is a seperate discussion as several of those players were treated very badly and should still be playing for us.

the Van Persie signing covered alot of cracks in 2013 and prior to that, the brilliant of Rooney and Nani did likewise in 2011. add in the solidity provided by VDS, Vidic, Rio and Evra for years, 4 players who were all on their last legs at the club (VDS already gone) when Moyes came in. an injured RVP, an out of form Nani and an aging backline and suddenly the title winning team was 7th best in the league - it wasnt all Moyes fault.

there is no doubt, David Moyes was sold a pup when he took over. Moyes failings however is that it took him too long to realise the squad was very very average and needed the work or more to the point, he lacked the necessary skill to get it done.

Mitch Connor

Blatter wrote: »

No. I'd hold an opinion close to the opposite end of the spectrum and outlined why a few times.

I reckon it was a squad around 3rd best - which Fergie got more out of, and Moyes less.

homerjay2005

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I reckon it was a squad around 3rd best - which Fergie got more out of, and Moyes less.

signing RVP turned us from potentially 4th or 5th into champions IMO. no player has ever carried a team like that, for almost an entire season.

i had been expecting us to miss out on top 4 that year before we signed him, sadly it happened within 12 months anyway once other things went wrong.

Maximus Alexander

J. Marston wrote: »

Wiki says he's 26. Looks like he's in his 20's.

Sign him up.

That's the problem with people in their 20s - he could just as easily be 29!

Pro. F

homerjay2005 wrote: »

signing RVP turned us from potentially 4th or 5th into champions IMO. no player has ever carried a team like that, for almost an entire season.

i had been expecting us to miss out on top 4 that year before we signed him, sadly it happened within 12 months anyway once other things went wrong.

We finished on the same number of points and scored three more goals the season before RVP signed. So to say that the club was going to struggle for top four without RVP doesn't hold up.

DM_7

A Saha type signing would make a lot of sense. Ighalo could provide goals and options between now and end of season.

Medium/Long term signings are the ideal scenario, if a player can come in for an immediate boost in options then it would be a smart move when the club has ground to make up this season.

Maximus Alexander

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I reckon it was a squad around 3rd best - which Fergie got more out of, and Moyes less.

Fully agree.

I still maintain though, that Moyes was sunk from the outset. I think no matter what he did he was going to struggle enormously to motivate a squad of players who signed under and played for Alex Ferguson, just after he retired. To my eyes, the loss of Ferguson would have been a huge blow to many of them, and at the very least you'd need a manager coming in who had a history of winning in the way that they did in order to get them on side.

Blatter

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i could have sworn you were one of the many posters on here who said for many years our squad quality was decreasing rapidly every year and we were barely hanging in there at the top.

You must be mixing me up with someone else. I thought the squad quality was pretty good (apart from CM) and the squad depth was excellent.

Blatter

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I reckon it was a squad around 3rd best - which Fergie got more out of, and Moyes less.

That would be a fair enough assessment but I'd add that the gap in quality between the top 3 was fairly small at the time.