Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2016

deaddonkey15

Can Mourinho not just continue being a Jaguar ambassador whilst United continue being a Chevrolet ambassador?

Trigger

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Can Mourinho not just continue being a Jaguar ambassador whilst United continue being a Chevrolet ambassador?

I would presume that the Chevrolet 7 year deal covers all playing staff and managers.. They would be mad not too.

Trigger

Headshot wrote: »

You would be to if you have those vultures in the press tracking you 24/7.

I'm surprised Sky haven't setup a Jose channel. 24/7 Jose Mourinho. Watch when he takes a dump

Minderbinder

Jayop wrote: »

If you're referring to my post comparing goals scored, then forget all the seasons he was outside the PL. Just in England he's managed 5 full 38 game seasons and outscored United in 3 of them, equaled us once and was worse once.

The comparison is more to demonstrate that for all his accusations of too much defensive boring play for Manchester United, he's outscored us more often than not.

I wouldn't go as far as to say he is too defensive or boring on the whole. his teams have certainly been well capable of putting weaker teams to the sword.

deaddonkey15

astradave wrote: »

I would presume that the Chevrolet 7 year deal covers all playing staff and managers.. They would be mad not too.

I suppose. Seems strange to me with all the various sponsorships and transfers of players and managers that these kinds of conflicts can be so significant. Wasn't/Isn't Ronaldo sponsored by Nike whilst wearing an Adidas kit at Madrid?

Trigger

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

I suppose. Seems strange to me with all the various sponsorships and transfers of players and managers that these kinds of conflicts can be so significant. Wasn't/Isn't Ronaldo sponsored by Nike whilst wearing an Adidas kit at Madrid?

Yeah but his nike deal wouldn't include anything to do with the Kit apart from boots, it couldn't be as the kit sponsorship is to do with the club not the player, whereas Chevrolet it would be more having the players in ads for GM and then having the manager of the same players in an ad for a rival company. Its a big difference that would need to be sorted out.

RobertKK

Claims United can sign Ronaldo for £80 million.

Trigger

RobertKK wrote: »

Claims United can sign Ronaldo for £80 million.

Bit too much if you ask me.. 40/50m would be my lot.. i know its Ronaldo but 80m is madness at his age

Theres also this:

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/735185917032292352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Maximus Alexander

astradave wrote: »

Bit too much if you ask me.. 40/50m would be my lot.. i know its Ronaldo but 80m is madness at his age

Theres also this:

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/735185917032292352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It would basically be like loaning Ronaldo to Madrid for 7 years for free. :pac:

Flint Fredstone

Buying Ronaldo back for what we sold him for would be fairly embarrassing IMO.

Trigger

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It would basically be like loaning Ronaldo to Madrid for 7 years for free. :pac:

Yep :pac:

Really can't see us going for him, i'd say he is off to PSG.

Edit: where are you seeing this Rob? can't see it anywhere

wintear

Though Ronaldo and ibra in the same dressing room would be fun

RobertKK

wintear wrote: »

Though Ronaldo and ibra in the same dressing room would be fun

They scored over 100 goals between them last season...

RobertKK

astradave wrote: »

Yep :pac:

Really can't see us going for him, i'd say he is off to PSG.

Edit: where are you seeing this Rob? can't see it anywhere

https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/735243074322989062

It is paper rumours...I think he only leaves if Neymar moved to Madrid.

deaddonkey15

RobertKK wrote: »

They scored over 100 goals between them last season...

They probably wouldn't pass the ball to each other though, and the rest of the United team would be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to passing to one of the two of them as well!

Michael D Not Higgins

I'd take Ronnie back in a heartbeat.

Maximus Alexander

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'd take Ronnie back in a heartbeat.

So would I, but that kind of money for a player that you'd might only get two years out of and recoup little or nothing?

I'm normally someone who says "it's not my money" or "let the club worry about whether they can afford it," so maybe it's hypocritical, but it seems like a fierce lot for a 31 year old who relies on athleticism.

ETA: Before anyone says "There's more to Ronaldo than athleticism" or similar, I know that. But it is a huge component of what makes him so spectacular.

Lads Jose is just making sure he doesnt have to dress up as a Marvel character for every game next season its all good.

Edit: Ah lads ronnie always looks after number one its off to Paris to score loads of goals, chance at champions league medals and still get shots at player of the year. He will not be interested in the diminished goal return he would get in the Premier league. (all if he moves of course)

Strumms

love to see Ronaldo back at United but 80 million.. you must be joking.. half that or there and abouts and it would be a reasonable deal for the selling club and the buying and indeed CR7 with a nice big **** off last contract....

Pro. F

bucketybuck wrote: »

I've already addressed this today. My suggestion of a club simply making a poor decision satisfies Occams Razor far more easily than any claim that there was some unknown non-compete clause stopping a manager like Mourinho taking a job he has long courted. My suggestion doesn't need to invent any unknown details like that, so which is more likely to be true?

Maybe Jose had a non-compete clause. Maybe he was being blackmailed by LVG. Maybe he was waiting to see if Villa stayed up. Speculate all you want but almost any reason you can think of requires more evidence than the possibility that the club simply made a bad call and decided to give Van Gaal more time.

I don't know the reasons, probably never will, but I know what my opinion is based on a few years of Ed Woodward decision making.

Your hypothesis makes one assumption, that Woodward chose to not hire Jose until the end of the season. The competing hypotheses - that Jose was on gardening leave; that he wanted to take some time off; etc - each make one assumption too. Your suggestion does need to invent an unknown detail, specificially, that the club made a choice to not sign Jose earlier. So Occam's razor doesn't favour either side of this argument.

Trigger

Pro. F wrote: »

Your hypothesis makes one assumption, that Woodward chose to not hire Jose until the end of the season. The competing hypotheses - that Jose was on gardening leave; that he wanted to take some time off; etc - each make one assumption too. Your suggestion does need to invent an unknown detail, specificially, that the club made a choice to not sign Jose earlier. So Occam's razor doesn't favour either side of this argument.

Welcome back

kstand

I was waiting to see how quickly the Ronaldo rumours would start up, this wont be the first. United will be linked to half of Europe over the coming days. Does Ronnie at 31 want to come to a club that cant offer him CL football, especially bearing in mind his own sponsorship deals? I cant see it happening.
I can see him bringing in a centre half, maybe a right back and a combative holding midfielder in the Kante/Mascherano sort of mould. He said he is after a right winger/right sided midfielder as well.
I have a feeling that the team will be far more functional than flair but right now thats not a bad thing, players that will run and work their socks off and know the system he wants to play. It wont however do in the longer term, but right now its about steadying the ship.
As for big names, well they dont come much bigger than Zlatan. That might be the marquee one for now. Doubltless Paul Pogba will be mentioned again but can see one of the big Spannish giants or Bayern going after him in Juve decide to cash in.

Liam McPoyle

I wonder if the £80m mooted for Ronaldo incl his wages rather than an £80m transfer fee.

As ludicrous as Madrid are, surely even they couldn't expect that kind of outlay for a 31 year old.

Maybe if it was PSG they were targeting but other than that, no chance Lance IMO.

£40m transfer fee and £40m in wages over 3 years with an option to extend.

The merch alone would easily cover his salary.

He would guarantee us a minimum of 20 to 25 goals a season, at the rate of £13.3m per season it's money well spent.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Maximus Alexander

Welcome back Pro. F, thought we'd lost you.

Lord TSC

We sold one of the best young players in the world to Real for 80m, and we undercharged in hindsight. But they were paying for longevity.

But Real would be selling us a man who would promise a few more Top 3 Balon Dor nominations, one of the (if not the) most recognisable players on the planet who would probably bring with him garrunteed trophies, at a time where all transfer fees have inflated.

IMO 60-80m probably wouldn't be far off the mark. Trying to compare what we got for him verses what we would pay for him, and trying to draw conclusions bout it being embarrassing or whatever, would be foolish. He is a different level of player than we sold all those years ago.

Not, mind, that it's happening...

bucketybuck

Pro. F wrote: »

Your hypothesis makes one assumption, that Woodward chose to not hire Jose until the end of the season. The competing hypotheses - that Jose was on gardening leave; that he wanted to take some time off; etc - each make one assumption too. Your suggestion does need to invent an unknown detail, specificially, that the club made a choice to not sign Jose earlier. So Occam's razor doesn't favour either side of this argument.

My assumption doesn't need to invent any details. Woodward didn't sack Van Gaal because he didn't think should, thats nice and simple, needs no further explanation, fits with everything that came before it, is unaffected by any external factors and is almost a default position for any manager at any club at any particular time. What evidence could you even provide for it, it would be like trying to prove a negative?

As opposed to, "Woodward didn't sack Van Gaal because there was paperwork/something else blocking the move", a claim that requires all parties to act in a seemingly irrational manner and by its nature demands further evidence. What exactly was this external factor? Why is it a non-compete clause and not one of the many other external factors that could be dreamed up?

"Simply didn't think he should" versus "some external factor blocking the move", no, I don't think the burden of proof is the same for both. You of course will disagree.

Fakman87

Another thing to consider is that when we sold Ronny to Madrid in 2009, £30 million was the going rate for top players. Now it's closer to £60 million so 80 for Ronny wouldn't be that outlandish.

bangkok

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Buying Ronaldo back for what we sold him for would be fairly embarrassing IMO.

its seems the club can do no right in a lot of fans eyes. How exactly would it be embarrassing?

you are buying one of the greatest players ever to play the game, we would automatically become title favourites with him signing alone. guaranteed 30+ goals next season from him alone

madrid would accept closer to 60m but its hard to see them selling him now after the season hes just had and the lack of quality replacements for him

Flint Fredstone

bangkok wrote: »

its seems the club can do no right in a lot of fans eyes. How exactly would it be embarrassing?

you are buying one of the greatest players ever to play the game, we would automatically become title favourites with him signing alone. guaranteed 30+ goals next season from him alone

madrid would accept closer to 60m but its hard to see them selling him now after the season hes just had and the lack of quality replacements for him

I said paying 80m would be embarrassing not signing Ronaldo would be embarrassing.

MagicIRL

Do we have a manager yet?

Maximus Alexander

MagicIRL wrote: »

Do we have a manager yet?

Michael D Not Higgins

Fakman87 wrote: »

Another thing to consider is that when we sold Ronny to Madrid in 2009, £30 million was the going rate for top players. Now it's closer to £60 million so 80 for Ronny wouldn't be that outlandish.

I previously did an analysis of the record transfer fees by year and plotted them on a log scale. The inflation adjusted formula is y=0.0268x-45.946 with an R squared value of 0.9816. y is the log value and x is the year.

As an example, for 2009, you get y=0.0268(2009)-45.946 => 7.8952
10^7.8952 = £78.5M, Ronnie sold that year for 80M. This predicts a transfer record fee this year of 120M, 50% higher.

This only looks at transfer record fees so doesn't account for prices of players in general so it's only an indication. However, it does show 80M today is like spending 50M in 2009 which is reportedly what we spent on Tevez in 2009. Ronaldo for Tevez prices.

bangkok

BREAKING NEWS:
MENDES TO MEET WOODWARD IN LONDON
Sky sources: Jorge Mendes and Ed Woodward will meet in London today for face to face talks over the remaining unresolved issues in Jose Mourinho's contract negotiations.

jayo26

Some are getting excited by paying reportedly 35 million in wages alone he will probably want sign on fee and bonus also to ibra who is 34 and playing in french league and probably has about 2 years left in him if even that.... ronaldo will prob have at least 4 years at ibras level maybe more. Ronaldo would pay back his transfer fee in a couple years in mechandize and edorsements, it would be a no brainer for me but i really cant see it ever happening we are here every year i think ronaldo will be at madrid for another couple years.

Kerrydude1981

Scholes has been talking about the Giggs situation

"I’ve not spoken to him for a few days but hopefully he will still be involved.
He’s got great experience, he knows the club inside out. I think everybody involved with the club and the fans especially would love him to be involved in some way – whether it is assistant or just helping him [Mourinho] being around the place.
He has been there for nearly 30 years now, he knows the players, he knows what type of football is expected and hopefully he can be of assistance somehow."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mourinho-manchester-united-updates-live-11381424

brinty

jayo26 wrote: »

Some are getting excited by paying reportedly 35 million in wages alone he will probably want sign on fee and bonus also to ibra who is 34 and playing in french league and probably has about 2 years left in him if even that.... ronaldo will prob have at least 4 years at ibras level maybe more. Ronaldo would pay back his transfer fee in a couple years in mechandize and edorsements, it would be a no brainer for me but i really cant see it ever happening we are here every year i think ronaldo will be at madrid for another couple years.

Jayo I think Ronaldo will decide his future after Saturday
2 champions leagues would be better thean 1 with Madrid..
Then go for the only treoophy he's never won
The Europa league
and break Rooneys soon to be goal scoring record at United... in half the time it took rooney... whilst also setting goal scoring records at Real

bangkok

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I said paying 80m would be embarrassing not signing Ronaldo would be embarrassing.

i dont think it would be.

Chelsea sold Lukaku for 27m and talk they will buy him back for 65m, i wouldnt consider that an embarressment, its the going rate for the player.

80m for Ronaldo is probably over paying by 10-15m but it would be far from an embarrassment.

Imagine this next season. give him back the no7 as well

Maximus Alexander

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I previously did an analysis of the record transfer fees by year and plotted them on a log scale. The inflation adjusted formula is y=0.0268x-45.946 with an R squared value of 0.9816. y is the log value and x is the year.

As an example, for 2009, you get y=0.0268(2009)-45.946 => 7.8952
10^7.8952 = £78.5M, Ronnie sold that year for 80M. This predicts a transfer record fee this year of 120M, 50% higher.

This only looks at transfer record fees so doesn't account for prices of players in general so it's only an indication. However, it does show 80M today is like spending 50M in 2009 which is reportedly what we spent on Tevez in 2009. Ronaldo for Tevez prices.

As impressively geeky as this is, your function hasn't worked since 2009. :P

Polo_Mint

I dont think Ronaldo will come back to United

brinty

bangkok wrote: »

i dont think it would be.

Chelsea sold Lukaku for 27m and talk they will buy him back for 65m, i wouldnt consider that an embarressment, its the going rate for the player.

80m for Ronaldo is probably over paying by 10-15m but it would be far from an embarrassment.

Imagine this next season. give him back the no7 as well

This is the Bangkok I like to read..

jayo26

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I previously did an analysis of the record transfer fees by year and plotted them on a log scale. The inflation adjusted formula is y=0.0268x-45.946 with an R squared value of 0.9816. y is the log value and x is the year.

As an example, for 2009, you get y=0.0268(2009)-45.946 => 7.8952
10^7.8952 = £78.5M, Ronnie sold that year for 80M. This predicts a transfer record fee this year of 120M, 50% higher.

This only looks at transfer record fees so doesn't account for prices of players in general so it's only an indication. However, it does show 80M today is like spending 50M in 2009 which is reportedly what we spent on Tevez in 2009. Ronaldo for Tevez prices.

Is that you Rachel???

Cookie_Dough

Kerrydude1981 wrote: »

Scholes has been talking about the Giggs situation

"I’ve not spoken to him for a few days but hopefully he will still be involved.
He’s got great experience, he knows the club inside out. I think everybody involved with the club and the fans especially would love him to be involved in some way – whether it is assistant or just helping him [Mourinho] being around the place.
He has been there for nearly 30 years now, he knows the players, he knows what type of football is expected and hopefully he can be of assistance somehow."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mourinho-manchester-united-updates-live-11381424

This is getting ridiculous :rolleyes:

What experience does he have that qualifies him for the job?

I, as a fan, would not love him to stay around, I'm sure fans would be happier to see him go somewhere smaller and manage rather than hanging around like a fly around sh!ite.

Why is there a "type" of football? People seriously need to let go of Fergie and his "United Way". Don't all teams expect attacking football with their team winning? I don't think the desire to win is exclusively a Manchester United thing.

Scholes loves the sound of his own voice, so insightful...

weisses

bangkok wrote: »

i dont think it would be.

Chelsea sold Lukaku for 27m and talk they will buy him back for 65m, i wouldnt consider that an embarressment, its the going rate for the player.

80m for Ronaldo is probably over paying by 10-15m but it would be far from an embarrassment.

Never mind Ronaldo ... What about Pogba ?

sReq | uTeK

Umaro wrote: »

Jose keeps it super defensive in the big games. From his most recent league-winning season:

Man City 1 - 1 Chelsea
Chelsea 2 - 0 Arsenal
Man Utd 1 - 1 Chelsea
Liverpool 1 - 2 Chelsea
Chelsea 1 - 1 Man City
Chelsea 1 - 0 Man Utd
Arsenal 0 - 0 Chelsea
Chelsea 1 - 1 Liverpool

Most of these games were excruciating to watch - but he didn't lose any of them (W3 D5). Thats what you get with Jose.

I'd happiy take 8 tight games and 30 entertaining games over 76 games of complete and utter crap.

Lets not Forget that in Europe Fergie loved setting up defensively as well with his 4-5-1

IamtheWalrus

Ronnie and Ibra plz kthxbai

Michael D Not Higgins

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

As impressively geeky as this is, your function hasn't worked since 2009. :P

Well there isn't a record every year. :pac:

When the next transfer record appears, you can check it again. Actually with the increased money in football, I expect the estimate will be lower than the real figure.

jayo26

Cookie_Dough wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous :rolleyes:

What experience does he have that qualifies him for the job?

I, as a fan, would not love him to stay around, I'm sure fans would be happier to see him go somewhere smaller and manage rather than hanging around like a fly around sh!ite.

Why is there a "type" of football? People seriously need to let go of Fergie and his "United Way". Don't all teams expect attacking football with their team winning? I don't think the desire to win is exclusively a Manchester United thing.

Scholes loves the sound of his own voice, so insightful...

Over reaction much? I have no problem with giggs staying around id love to see him taking over the u21 if joyce leaves then we see how he gets on if he does well he will be offered a decent job with another club and he cqn go prove himself.

Maximus Alexander

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Well there isn't a record every year. :pac:

When the next transfer record appears, you can check it again. Actually with the increased money in football, I expect the estimate will be lower than the real figure.

I would concede this if there were no data points in the interim, but there was a record fee in 2014 that didn't fit the graph. :P And since I expect you came up with this post 2009 and made it fit the existing data, I am not convinced of its predictive power.

Polo_Mint

Giggs needs to stand on his own 2 feet.

It would be a waste of time for him staying at the club if he wants to be United Manager.

He has I think a 4 game managerial experience but has not proved how he would handle situations week in week out.

bangkok

weisses wrote: »

Never mind Ronaldo ... What about Pogba ?

another dream signing, however, players would have to be sold in order to balance the books, Mata back to Valencia or Athletico and Fellaini to Roma or back to Everton