Manchester United Teamtalk/Transfer Rumours/Gossip 2019/20 (Mod Notes Post #1)

Sebastian Dangerfield

Invincible wrote: »

Had a notion that the last contract he got, Ole said something, he'd be good experience to have to bring on younger players.
He'll hardly end up with a coaching role ?

Either way, he seems to have been easing into retirement mode for a couple of years. Couldnt believe he was only 32

Invincible

Any chance of getting a player in the mould of Gnabry?
Missing a player of his talent in midfield.

Starlord_01

Your Airbag

Sancho deal looks to be dead imo, I'm not too bothered tbh given BvB taking the mick asking for 120m in one payment and I'm excited to see how Greenwood does next season. Its time Utd got moving on other targets sharpish.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Your Airbag wrote: »

Sancho deal looks to be dead imo, I'm not too bothered tbh given BvB taking the mick asking for 120m in one payment and I'm excited to see how Greenwood does next season. Its time Utd got moving on other targets sharpish.

Sancho is critical. We only have 3 top front players. What if one needs a rest or inevitably get injured?

The_Kew_Tour

We still need 4 or 5 players, but I reckon we will end up with 2 max.

The Glaziers have ruined United

brinty

The_Kew_Tour wrote:

The Glaziers have ruined United

It was inevitable, same thing happened with their football team won a Superbowl and give to the dogs since. Although they did get Tom Brady but American football player movement between teams is totally different.

Although you being a dolphins fan must be happy he's left new England

Fitz*

pjohnson wrote: »

Well the also seems to be an issue with actually following and achieving the current managers plan.

Maguire took 12 months to actually join and Bruno 6 months. Maybe we get Sancho finally completed in January or next summer? The issue is spending the money in time.

I think if Man United don't buy Sancho this window, it becomes a lot trickier to sign him next summer where there will be a lot more competition to sign him, most notably the current champions, but also Barca/Real. I don't think he will go back to City or to PSG/Bayern myself.

Man United have a clear run at him this summer so this is their best chance of getting him. Have to get him this summer IMO, if they want him.

yourdeadwright

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

We still need 4 or 5 players, but I reckon we will end up with 2 max.

The Glaziers have ruined United

I hear this a lot but what have they actually done wrong ,
Is it there appointments of staff that's the problem ?

Cookiemunster

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I hear this a lot but what have they actually done wrong ,
Is it there appointments of staff that's the problem ?

Seriously? Robbed the club of 1bn of its earnings while saddling it with 400m of debt for a start. Leaving an unqualified accountant run who the club for 7 years. A guy who doesn't know how to get a transfer over the line.

They have no interest in Utd other than as a money making machine. They couldn't care less if Utd never win a trophy again as long as they get their dividend every year.

Mitch Connor

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I hear this a lot but what have they actually done wrong ,
Is it there appointments of staff that's the problem ?

Taken 1 billion out of the club.
Hired David Moyes and not sign him his targets (Fellaini was a fall back, Mata a woodward signing).
Then went a completely different direction with LVG.
Went a completely different direction after LVG with Jose.
Made a mess of Jose's second summer, signing only Fred and Dalot - no CB, no winger - failing to either back or sack Jose.
Went a completely different direction after Jose.
Failed to sign key targets last summer (Sancho), arguably Dybala. Left us short in attack.
Protracted negotiations for Bruno in January meaning he only came at the end of the window, missing games he could have had an impact in.
Missed out on key target Haaland.
Have failed so far to sign Sancho.
United went from winning the title regularly, always competing, to not competing for the title at all and *sometimes* qualifying for the CL.
Have seen Liverpool completely outstrip and humiliate them.
Have lost money on sponsorship deals we had through poor performance.

All under their ownership, all their responsibility.

The failings of anyone under them at United is their responsibility.
If Woodward/Judge aren't doing a good enough job, it is on them.

yourdeadwright

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Seriously? Robbed the club of 1bn of its earnings while saddling it with 400m of debt for a start. Leaving an unqualified accountant run who the club for 7 years. A guy who doesn't know how to get a transfer over the line.

They have no interest in Utd other than as a money making machine. They couldn't care less if Utd never win a trophy again as long as they get their dividend every year.

Are they still in debt ?
So the main issues in there management of the club is Woodward ?
Why do you think he keeps his job ?

Father Hernandez

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I hear this a lot but what have they actually done wrong ,
Is it there appointments of staff that's the problem ?

The Glazer's don't care about Man United challenging for the title.

They want top 4 as it keeps the club marketable, in the Champions League for prize money so they can extract as much money as possible. They haven't invested a penny into the club, leeches.

Once the club is in the CL, they can milk them for all they want and keep a decent side capable of challenging for top 4.

United have more than enough money to swoop in and get Sancho but I suspect the Glazers will have told Woodie to hold his horses as (taken from the Guardian 12 months ago "challenging for the title is expensive, speculative and relatively unrewarding. But Champions League qualification – lucrative and accessible – has been fundamental."

Fenix

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I hear this a lot but what have they actually done wrong ,
Is it there appointments of staff that's the problem ?

This is a good thread, showing what they've done in the 15 years since taking over.

https://twitter.com/hugoluhm/status/1296073767278514183?s=21

Cookiemunster

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Are they still in debt ?
So the main issues in there management of the club is Woodward ?
Why do you think he keeps his job ?

Because he makes them money. As I said they don't care where United finish or what trophies they win as long as the money keeps rolling in. And Woodward is very good at that bit.

And yes the debt has never been paid off.

And as I remember it, Old Traffod is is in a terrible state. It need millions in investment, but they've no intention of doing anything with it.

Mitch Connor

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Woodward ?
Why do you think he keeps his job ?

Becuase United are profitable. The only thing they care about. If they cared about performance, woodward would have been replaced long ago. He isn't employed for his ability to sheperd a football club, he is employed to run a corporate entity.

DARK-KNIGHT

Is there not risk involved with Sancho though

Yes he tore it up this year in Germany but would be do it in England

20 million euro just seems insane money

yourdeadwright

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Taken 1 billion out of the club.
Hired David Moyes and not sign him his targets (Fellaini was a fall back, Mata a woodward signing).
Then went a completely different direction with LVG.
Went a completely different direction after LVG with Jose.
Made a mess of Jose's second summer, signing only Fred and Dalot - no CB, no winger - failing to either back or sack Jose.
Went a completely different direction after Jose.
Failed to sign key targets last summer (Sancho), arguably Dybala. Left us short in attack.
Protracted negotiations for Bruno in January meaning he only came at the end of the window, missing games he could have had an impact in.
Missed out on key target Haaland.
Have failed so far to sign Sancho.
United went from winning the title regularly, always competing, to not competing for the title at all and *sometimes* qualifying for the CL.
Have seen Liverpool completely outstrip and humiliate them.
Have lost money on sponsorship deals we had through poor performance.

All under their ownership, all their responsibility.

The failings of anyone under them at United is their responsibility.
If Woodward/Judge aren't doing a good enough job, it is on them.

Can't argue with any of the above really form what I know

Where they advised by anyone when it came to manger appointments ?
Wasn't it reported Fergie wanted them to give the job to Moyes ?

Only one thing id disagree with and its on "Missing out on targets " it happens to literally every club small to large,

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Can't argue with any of the above really form what I know

Where they advised by anyone when it came to manger appointments ?
Wasn't it reported Fergie wanted them to give the job to Moyes ?

Only one thing id disagree with and its on "Missing out on targets " it happens to literally every club small to large,

We havent had a complete first 11 in I dont know how long.

For years our midfield was patched together and it was very slowly fixed.

We had old converted wingers playing fbs had not a RB of note for ages until last year.

We still dont have a RW after years of the position not be filled.

Its possibly the closest we have been in years to a decent starting 11 but we still need at least 2 signings for that and one is a RW and a very good one at that.

Thats just shocking alone for a big club, not to mention all the other stuff people have

Cookiemunster

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Only one thing id disagree with and its on "Missing out on targets " it happens to literally every club small to large,

United lose out because Woodward won't ever go the extra mile to get the target that the club can easily afford. When we do get them over the line it's like with Maguire and Bruno. Spend months trying to haggle down the price only in the end to pay what was being initially looked for anyway. In the meanwhile other targets will have gone elsewhere, meaning that we might only get two player over the line instead of the three or four we actually need.

And Woodward being in charge of transfers, is again the responsibility of the Glazers.

Drumpot

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Seriously? Robbed the club of 1bn of its earnings while saddling it with 400m of debt for a start. Leaving an unqualified accountant run who the club for 7 years. A guy who doesn't know how to get a transfer over the line.

They have no interest in Utd other than as a money making machine. They couldn't care less if Utd never win a trophy again as long as they get their dividend every year.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Taken 1 billion out of the club.
Hired David Moyes and not sign him his targets (Fellaini was a fall back, Mata a woodward signing).
Then went a completely different direction with LVG.
Went a completely different direction after LVG with Jose.
Made a mess of Jose's second summer, signing only Fred and Dalot - no CB, no winger - failing to either back or sack Jose.
Went a completely different direction after Jose.
Failed to sign key targets last summer (Sancho), arguably Dybala. Left us short in attack.
Protracted negotiations for Bruno in January meaning he only came at the end of the window, missing games he could have had an impact in.
Missed out on key target Haaland.
Have failed so far to sign Sancho.
United went from winning the title regularly, always competing, to not competing for the title at all and *sometimes* qualifying for the CL.
Have seen Liverpool completely outstrip and humiliate them.
Have lost money on sponsorship deals we had through poor performance.

All under their ownership, all their responsibility.

The failings of anyone under them at United is their responsibility.
If Woodward/Judge aren't doing a good enough job, it is on them.

Father Hernandez wrote: »

The Glazer's don't care about Man United challenging for the title.

They want top 4 as it keeps the club marketable, in the Champions League for prize money so they can extract as much money as possible. They haven't invested a penny into the club, leeches.

Once the club is in the CL, they can milk them for all they want and keep a decent side capable of challenging for top 4.

United have more than enough money to swoop in and get Sancho but I suspect the Glazers will have told Woodie to hold his horses as (taken from the Guardian 12 months ago "challenging for the title is expensive, speculative and relatively unrewarding. But Champions League qualification – lucrative and accessible – has been fundamental."

Always Infuriates me when I see people talk as if United owners are good at running a club. They are good at making money off clubs, but they are not good for clubs or fans of clubs. They’ve managed to make money in two different sports and at the same time drive both clubs into mediocrity or worse. They even booked the losing trend of qualifying for playoffs in American football when it was statistically very unlikely and harder to achieve. Best thing you can say is they don’t use it to sports wash over some other non football related issue the owners have. They are a pox on the club.

Every time I see Woodward or hear about the glazers I want to punch somebody. So instead of rambling for loads of paragraphs on what Is wrong with them (and nobody reading it) , I will just post a GIF of what I feel like discussing them.

pjohnson

MattS1 wrote: »

Sancho is critical. We only have 3 top front players. What if one needs a rest or inevitably get injured?

This clearly wont be an issue for Ole and his squad management, we saw this post lockdown.

Mitch Connor

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Can't argue with any of the above really form what I know

Where they advised by anyone when it came to manger appointments ?
Wasn't it reported Fergie wanted them to give the job to Moyes ?

Only one thing id disagree with and its on "Missing out on targets " it happens to literally every club small to large,

No one knows the truth of the Moyes appointment. Fergie claimed it at the time, but since then he has distanced himself from it - saying Klopp and Pep were wanted by him.

As for LVG, Jose, Ole - I would say they are led by Woodward - but Woodward is their responsibility. If he is failing to produce the results they want, it is on them to act and do something about it.

brinty

pjohnson wrote:

This clearly wont be an issue for Ole and his squad management, we saw this post lockdown.

Yep I mean they're supremely fit

So fit no subs were needed until injury time

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

No one knows the truth of the Moyes appointment. Fergie claimed it at the time, but since then he has distanced himself from it - saying Klopp and Pep were wanted by him.

As for LVG, Jose, Ole - I would say they are led by Woodward - but Woodward is their responsibility. If he is failing to produce the results they want, it is on them to act and do something about it.

SAF is being paid a decent amount to be club ambassador, why would he call Out anything the Glazers do?

I know we all love the great Scot but he effectively made a deal with the devil when they took over the club. I don’t fully blame him as he either had to retire (he fell out with previous owners) or get owners he could work with. The deal was that he would be more hamstrung with spending (you can’t saddle a club with debt and interest and not expect less money to spend) but he would have mostly complete control over the football side of things. Until RVP , I don’t think we spent significant money on a ready made player at their peak (28/29)who wouldn’t have a potential resale value.

SAF was a genius that made working with the clowns somehow successful in spite of them. Best thing they did was have little to no input in the running of the football side. That’s the biggest mistake they made when SAF retired , thinking they had any idea how to manage a club. Giving the running of the club to Woodward basically as a reward because he brokered the deal that led to the Glazerrs using our club as their own personal ATM. They’ve take so much and given us mediocrity in return.

Mitch Connor

Drumpot wrote: »

SAF is being paid a decent amount to be club ambassador, why would he call Out anything the Glazers do?

I know we all love the great Scot but he effectively made a deal with the devil when they took over the club. I don’t fully blame him as he either had to retire (he fell out with previous owners) or get owners he could work with. The deal was that he would be more hamstrung with spending (you can’t saddle a club with debt and interest and not expect less money to spend) but he would have mostly complete control over the football side of things. Until RVP , I don’t think we spent significant money on a ready made player at their peak (28/29)who wouldn’t have a potential resale value.

SAF was a genius that made working with the clowns somehow successful in spite of them. Best thing they did was have little to no input in the running of the football side. That’s the biggest mistake they made when SAF retired , thinking they had any idea how to manage a club. Giving the running of the club to Woodward basically as a reward because he brokered the deal that led to the Glazerrs using our club as their own personal ATM. They’ve take so much and given us mediocrity in return.

the horse lads didn't own the club. They owned significant shares, but it was a PLC without strict ownership in the same way the Glazers own United now.

I also don't think Fergie had anything to do with the sale, in either direction. Either supporting Glazer's in their bid or forcing the others to sell. It was simple money. Glazer wanted the club and the horse guys either had to buy the club themselves or sell out (as they had reached the trigger point of a purchase).

It is arguable, at least, that Fergie protected their ownership once they were owners with regards to transfer spend etc. But again, I think it is a reach to imply Fergie helped them own the club in return for allowing him to run it.

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the horse lads didn't own the club. They owned significant shares, but it was a PLC without strict ownership in the same way the Glazers own United now.

I also don't think Fergie had anything to do with the sale, in either direction. Either supporting Glazer's in their bid or forcing the others to sell. It was simple money. Glazer wanted the club and the horse guys either had to buy the club themselves or sell out (as they had reached the trigger point of a purchase).

It is arguable, at least, that Fergie protected their ownership once they were owners with regards to transfer spend etc. But again, I think it is a reach to imply Fergie helped them own the club in return for allowing him to run it.

It’s questionable whether Magnier and McManus sell if they don’t fall out with SAF, that’s speculative but not completely dismissed as a factor in their decision. And there’s no way the glazers buy the club without buyin/support from SAF, I don’t see how SAF didn’t help them buy it TBH. By not coming out publicly against them he effectively did support them buying the club.

Lord TSC

MattS1 wrote: »

Sancho is critical. We only have 3 top front players. What if one needs a rest or inevitably get injured?

A right winger is critical.

Sancho is the best option. But he's absolutely not the only option.

Painting Sancho as the one and only target means they can spin the "We tried but not our fault we failed" narrative at the end of the window without signing anyone.

Whatsisname

Forgot about all of this. Could cause a logistical nightmare.

[url]

https://twitter.com/sport_witness/status/1296483500590346242?s=21[/url]

Your Airbag

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Taken 1 billion out of the club.
Hired David Moyes and not sign him his targets (Fellaini was a fall back, Mata a woodward signing).
Then went a completely different direction with LVG.
Went a completely different direction after LVG with Jose.
Made a mess of Jose's second summer, signing only Fred and Dalot - no CB, no winger - failing to either back or sack Jose.
Went a completely different direction after Jose.
Failed to sign key targets last summer (Sancho), arguably Dybala. Left us short in attack.
Protracted negotiations for Bruno in January meaning he only came at the end of the window, missing games he could have had an impact in.
Missed out on key target Haaland.
Have failed so far to sign Sancho.
United went from winning the title regularly, always competing, to not competing for the title at all and *sometimes* qualifying for the CL.
Have seen Liverpool completely outstrip and humiliate them.
Have lost money on sponsorship deals we had through poor performance.

All under their ownership, all their responsibility.

The failings of anyone under them at United is their responsibility.
If Woodward/Judge aren't doing a good enough job, it is on them.

There are some valid criticisms of the Glazers but some of the above is pure fiction mixed with unwarranted attacks.

Fergie picked Moyes, pure and simple, the Glazers biggest mistake was listening to him but thats on Fergie.

Going in different directions after Moyes and Jose, what do you expect? Both managers had two worse starts to a season on record for Utd. Framing it as going a different direction your referring to a new manager coming in and wanting his own style and players, this is something most clubs deal with when they fire a manager.

Failing to sign Halland and Sancho? Halland wanted BvB plain and simple, putting that as a fault on the Glazers is ridiculous as is failing to sign Sancho. BvB are asking for a lump sum up from of 120m, its totally unreasonable and not how most clubs do transfers. Weve taken a stricter stance on transfers recently due to us overpaying and many of our own fans complain about it, seems damned if they do or dont in many fans eyes.

Outstripped and humiliated by Liverpool? You mean like every other team and what does outstripped mean exactly. Lost money and gained a lot also through deals, its how business works. I'm all for just criticism but a lot of that is unreasonable.

Mitch Connor

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s questionable whether Magnier and McManus sell if they don’t fall out with SAF, that’s speculative but not completely dismissed as a factor in their decision. And there’s no way the glazers buy the club without buyin/support from SAF, I don’t see how SAF didn’t help them buy it TBH. By not coming out publicly against them he effectively did support them buying the club.

Gill said "debt was the road to ruin" and their business plan was BS. they did not recieve support from United (GIll, Fergie or anyone) prior to the purchase.

They still bought the club. Fergie had nothing to do with it. You claim M&M not selling is speculative if not for the falling out and then say there is no way Glazers don't buy without Fergie's support? How on earth are you stating that as incontravertable but M&M, two guys who are about making money, making money by selling, is speculative.

Mitch Connor

Your Airbag wrote: »

There are some valid criticisms of the Glazers but some of the above is pure fiction mixed with unwarranted attacks.

Fergie picked Moyes, pure and simple, the Glazers biggest mistake was listening to him but thats on Fergie.

They sign the contracts. They are responsible. even IF he was Fergies pick (and that is disputed) it would be their choice and action to defer to him. Their responsibility.

Going in different directions after Moyes and Jose, what do you expect? Both managers had two worse starts to a season on record for Utd. Framing it as going a different direction your referring to a new manager coming in and wanting his own style and players, this is something most clubs deal with when they fire a manager.

It shows no forthought or vision for the club. There is zero through line between Moyes --> LVG --> Jose --> Ole in terms of style of philosophy. That has an impact on player recruitment and squad imbalance.

Again, they own the club and are ultimately responsible for the overall performance of everyone under them.

Do Barcelona go with a completely different style of football every time they change manager or is there a fundemental similarity of ethos? City went through coaches, but the building blocks were there for each one, because the style of football they wanted was defined and made a priority. Did Liverpool rip up their style between Rodgers, Dalglish and Klopp or do the fundementals stays the same but get improve and evolve?

At United that didn't happen. The squad was not built with an ultimate vision in place.

Failing to sign Halland and Sancho? Halland wanted BvB plain and simple, putting that as a fault on the Glazers is ridiculous as is failing to sign Sancho. BvB are asking for a lump sum up from of 120m, its totally unreasonable and not how most clubs do transfers. Weve taken a stricter stance on transfers recently due to us overpaying and many of our own fans complain about it, seems damned if they do or dont in many fans eyes.

Yes, they failed to sign key targets. Would offering more money have signed these players? Haaland only wanted Dortmund - got to wonder why he bothered meeting Ole so. Seems odd when you have no interest in signing for the club.

Show me the evidence Dortmund are asking for 120 lump sum. Everything I have seen says they want 120 gauranteed, in relatively quick payment structure. But not up front. With United want to both pay less, with a different payment structure. Sancho has been THE target for 12 months. How do we get 4 weeks from the season starting and the transfer is still ongoing? Either agree a deal or pull out and go elsewhere.

But yeah, teams miss out on targets so the weakest of the arguments. But we are missing out on targets because the club don't want to pay for them.

Outstripped and humiliated by Liverpool? You mean like every other team and what does outstrip mean exactly. Lost money and gained a lot also through deals. I'm all for just criticism but a lot of that is unreasonable.

Yes, like every other team. Is that supposed to make finishing 30+ points behind them (and similar last season) palitable or something? its not like liverpool have done so through blood money or soverign backing. they had done so through good management from Top to Bottom. Which United have clearly lacked since Fergie left.

United finished second to City under Jose. Since them we have gotten even further away from the title while liverpool came close last season and won it this season. Along with winning the CL. That is a damning indictment of United and the terrible recruitment of managers, players and staff.

And, ultimately, Glazers are responsible for it all. If people under them are not producing the results they expect, it is up to them to take actions to rectify it. But they haven't done anything about Woodward, or Judge. They haven't saught to improve the football structures at United to deliver better results.

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Gill said "debt was the road to ruin" and their business plan was BS. they did not recieve support from United (GIll, Fergie or anyone) prior to the purchase.

They still bought the club. Fergie had nothing to do with it. You claim M&M not selling is speculative if not for the falling out and then say there is no way Glazers don't buy without Fergie's support? How on earth are you stating that as incontravertable but M&M, two guys who are about making money, making money by selling, is speculative.

I don’t want to go round In circles Mitch but it’s like bidding on a player you want. You find out if they are interested before making a bid.

The Glazers don’t buy the club without talking with SAF, they just don’t. He wasn’t just another manager of a club , he was the club and without him they couldn’t of pulled it off. They needed at worst, him to be quiet, at best support them. If they buy the club and he quits , the value goes down straight away and given how they have managed the club since he retired , there’s an extra variable for them to manage.

Yes, maguire and McManus did make a profit by selling up but they fell out with the golden goose of that investment. They fell out hard, Ferguson is not a forgiving person. What do you think the value of the club would of gone to has Ferguson quit before they sold? It’s not that much of a stretch to see the business benefit of getting away from United in that scenario.

Your Airbag

Mitch Connor wrote: »

They sign the contracts. They are responsible. even IF he was Fergies pick (and that is disputed) it would be their choice and action to defer to him. Their responsibility.

It shows no forthought or vision for the club. There is zero through line between Moyes --> LVG --> Jose --> Ole in terms of style of philosophy. That has an impact on player recruitment and squad imbalance.

Again, they own the club and are ultimately responsible for the overall performance of everyone under them.

Do Barcelona go with a completely different style of football every time they change manager or is there a fundemental similarity of ethos? City went through coaches, but the building blocks were there for each one, because the style of football they wanted was defined and made a priority. Did Liverpool rip up their style between Rodgers, Dalglish and Klopp or do the fundementals stays the same but get improve and evolve?

At United that didn't happen. The squad was not built with an ultimate vision in place.


Yes, they failed to sign key targets. Would offering more money have signed these players? Haaland only wanted Dortmund - got to wonder why he bothered meeting Ole so. Seems odd when you have no interest in signing for the club.

Show me the evidence Dortmund are asking for 120 lump sum. Everything I have seen says they want 120 gauranteed, in relatively quick payment structure. But not up front. With United want to both pay less, with a different payment structure. Sancho has been THE target for 12 months. How do we get 4 weeks from the season starting and the transfer is still ongoing? Either agree a deal or pull out and go elsewhere.

But yeah, teams miss out on targets so the weakest of the arguments. But we are missing out on targets because the club don't want to pay for them.

Yes, like every other team. Is that supposed to make finishing 30+ points behind them (and similar last season) palitable or something? its not like liverpool have done so through blood money or soverign backing. they had done so through good management from Top to Bottom. Which United have clearly lacked since Fergie left.

United finished second to City under Jose. Since them we have gotten even further away from the title while liverpool came close last season and won it this season. Along with winning the CL. That is a damning indictment of United and the terrible recruitment of managers, players and staff.

And, ultimately, Glazers are responsible for it all. If people under them are not producing the results they expect, it is up to them to take actions to rectify it. But they haven't done anything about Woodward, or Judge. They haven't saught to improve the football structures at United to deliver better results.

Of course they signed off on the Moyes contract but a contract is drawn up to sign after the manager is picked so he can also sign it, the decision beforehand was on Fergie.

As for Liverpool, your giving them way too much credit here. Daglish to Rogers to Klopp is not a continuation of style. Rogers is more possession based and Klopp counter attacking high press, Daglish is just teriible and before those three they had Hodgson and Rafa. There is no masterplan or Ethos in place, they have gotten a great manager recently and thats why they have been so successfully, very little of what came before has anything to do with it. Its mainly down to Klopp and a good transfer policy.

I also don't think Klopp is building a dynasty at Liverpool, he has overachieved with the players he has but that's why he's a great manager. He can make average players play at a very high level for a given amount of time, he did it at BvB and now he's done it again at Liverpool. He isnt a long term manager or at least doesn't have a track record of it and when he leaves Liverpool will be at a dilemma to replace him with someone who can do the same with those players. He even recently said he'll see at the end of his current contract if he still has a passion for football before he makes a decision to continue at all in the game. He strikes me as a go hard and burn out type of manager and not an long term legacy builder.

Barcelona are an anomaly in terms of playing style, its embedded in players from the youth academy to transfer to the first team. Cryuff instilled this in the club in the 80's and they have had a golden generation with the spine of the team being some of the best players in their positions ever, like we had with the class of 92. Even with all that recently that style has been variation and hasn't worked for them or always been the same, it certainly hasn't been close to the superb level off football Pep had them playing.

I won't go over transfers again, all clubs fail to sign players at given times, its part of the game. Barca had 300m worth of players on the bench the other night that they couldn't integrate successfully when Bayern hammered them. Chelsea have also had a merry go round of managers with wildly varying results.

When things are going bad for you there is a tendency to look over the fence at what others are doing and think the have it all figured out. Liverpool are doing well because they got in a great manager and made some shrewd signings, it took a couple of seasons for Klopp to make them tick and thats all the it takes sometimes for it to come together quickly. It even happened for Leicester.

bangkok

Mitch Connor wrote: »

They sign the contracts. They are responsible. even IF he was Fergies pick (and that is disputed) it would be their choice and action to defer to him. Their responsibility.

It shows no forthought or vision for the club. There is zero through line between Moyes --> LVG --> Jose --> Ole in terms of style of philosophy. That has an impact on player recruitment and squad imbalance.

Again, they own the club and are ultimately responsible for the overall performance of everyone under them.

Do Barcelona go with a completely different style of football every time they change manager or is there a fundemental similarity of ethos? City went through coaches, but the building blocks were there for each one, because the style of football they wanted was defined and made a priority. Did Liverpool rip up their style between Rodgers, Dalglish and Klopp or do the fundementals stays the same but get improve and evolve?

i dont believe that for one minute, there approach was pretty much the same as uniteds, just try and buy the best players available. when city were taken over, they were trying to buy a whole host of players players on deadline day.

they signed a keeper and a whole new back line, when they were not happy with that they just went and signed more 50m defenders, there was no plan, they just had a multi-billionaire owner who threw money at a problem.

Sand

Drumpot wrote: »

I don’t want to go round In circles Mitch but it’s like bidding on a player you want. You find out if they are interested before making a bid.

The Glazers don’t buy the club without talking with SAF, they just don’t. He wasn’t just another manager of a club , he was the club and without him they couldn’t of pulled it off. They needed at worst, him to be quiet, at best support them. If they buy the club and he quits , the value goes down straight away and given how they have managed the club since he retired , there’s an extra variable for them to manage.

Yes, maguire and McManus did make a profit by selling up but they fell out with the golden goose of that investment. They fell out hard, Ferguson is not a forgiving person. What do you think the value of the club would of gone to has Ferguson quit before they sold? It’s not that much of a stretch to see the business benefit of getting away from United in that scenario.

You're guessing that and there's no particular reason to believe its the case. They weren't SAF's shares to sell. If anything, SAF doing something (?) to drive down share value helps them buy out the other owners for cheaper. The Glazer takeover was never popular with the fans and it didn't matter because its not an issue of popularity. And as for team value with or without SAF - the forbes team value in 2013 was 3.1 billion. In 2020 they're valuing it at 3.8 billion.

brinty

Sand wrote:

You're guessing that and there's no particular reason to believe its the case. They weren't SAF's shares to sell. If anything, SAF doing something (?) to drive down share value helps them buy out the other owners for cheaper. The Glazer takeover was never popular with the fans and it didn't matter because its not an issue of popularity. And as for team value with or without SAF - the forbes team value in 2013 was 3.1 billion. In 2020 they're valuing it at 3.8 billion.

It's was 650m when they took over

By 2013 when Fergie left it was called 5 times higher

In 2020 7 years after getting left, the value had grown by about 20%

They've been caught and surpassed by multiple teams

All due lack of on field success

Sand

brinty wrote: »

It's was 650m when they took over

By 2013 when Fergie left it was called 5 times higher

In 2020 7 years after getting left, the value had grown by about 20%

They've been caught and surpassed by multiple teams

All due lack of on field success

There is probably only so long you can keep selling t-shirts on the back of old triumphs but if on field success was directly correlated to off field money, then the Glazers would have it as their top priority. They obviously don't, and they probably know more about how to squeeze the last dollar of value out of the club than the average fan does.

fatherted1969

Cookiemunster wrote: »

United lose out because Woodward won't ever go the extra mile to get the target that the club can easily afford. When we do get them over the line it's like with Maguire and Bruno. Spend months trying to haggle down the price only in the end to pay what was being initially looked for anyway. In the meanwhile other targets will have gone elsewhere, meaning that we might only get two player over the line instead of the three or four we actually need.

And Woodward being in charge of transfers, is again the responsibility of the Glazers.

Woodward can't really win at times I think. Go the extra mile and you could use Pogba, Sanchez, Rooney, De Gea, to name just a few. Players he stuck his neck out in tramsfer fees and wages only for it to come back to bite him hard. We're in the top 3 or 4 in world football in wages alone. We've spent absurd amounts of money on players who didn't deserve half the money. If he's hesitating on Sancho I can fully understand it. What makes him more of a certainlty than all the above I've mentioned ? Add another 30M to our record transfer fee in the middle of a pandemic as well.

El Gato De Negocios

The club are a money making machine however the longer we go without major honours the harder that will be to sustain.

fatherted1969

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Woodward can't really win at times I think. Go the extra mile and you could use Pogba, Sanchez, Rooney, De Gea, to name just a few. Players he stuck his neck out in tramsfer fees and wages only for it to come back to bite him hard. We're in the top 3 or 4 in world football in wages alone. We've spent absurd amounts of money on players who didn't deserve half the money. If he's hesitating on Sancho I can fully understand it. What makes him more of a certainlty than all the above I've mentioned ? Add another 30M to our record transfer fee in the middle of a pandemic as well.

What does he know about football and buying players and selling players.

He shouldn't be running the football side of things just hire an expert or experts and let them do what he isnt qualified to do.

It's not like he is just unlucky that can happen but it's years now of abject failure,

Drumpot

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Woodward can't really win at times I think. Go the extra mile and you could use Pogba, Sanchez, Rooney, De Gea, to name just a few. Players he stuck his neck out in tramsfer fees and wages only for it to come back to bite him hard. We're in the top 3 or 4 in world football in wages alone. We've spent absurd amounts of money on players who didn't deserve half the money. If he's hesitating on Sancho I can fully understand it. What makes him more of a certainlty than all the above I've mentioned ? Add another 30M to our record transfer fee in the middle of a pandemic as well.

What exactly do you think Woodward and the glazers are responsible for?

I think they are responsible for creating an environment for United to be successful on the pitch. I think they are responsible for making sure they use our resources in the best way possible to help create that success.

Asides from spending the clubs own money, what exactly have they done the last 8 years that leads you to believe they deserve to be given a break?

What other club in the world spends anywhere near close to United and can barely scrape into the top 4 of its league? I think we have one of the worst owners in football world. Our return for investments is pathetic. I don’t believe they really have the competency to run the footballing side of the club.

Any idiot can Change managers and buy big name signings with the kind of resources That the club can afford. But the financial muscle that we have over most clubs in the world and only one club in England has been wasted badly and after nearly a decade we can narrow down those at fault. The one constant during this period is Woodward and the Glazers doing whatever the f**k they are doing and doing it badly. They are doing the same sh*# job with their American football team.

The best thing Woodward and the glazers could do is sell up and feck off. Next to that, sack Woodward and get somebody who knows what they are doing to start setting up a proper football infrastructure. They might even throw a few quid at giving the ground a lick of paint.

Father Hernandez

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Woodward can't really win at times I think. Go the extra mile and you could use Pogba, Sanchez, Rooney, De Gea, to name just a few. Players he stuck his neck out in tramsfer fees and wages only for it to come back to bite him hard. We're in the top 3 or 4 in world football in wages alone. We've spent absurd amounts of money on players who didn't deserve half the money. If he's hesitating on Sancho I can fully understand it. What makes him more of a certainlty than all the above I've mentioned ? Add another 30M to our record transfer fee in the middle of a pandemic as well.

Whatever about their success on the field, the whole point of buying footballers is to make sure they have the right ethos, will fit the teams style of play, strong mentality, what sort of character thay have. Mountains of research should surely go into it.

Pogba and Sanchez were more likely bought as 'Manc Galacticos' to sell a couple jerseys as they're world famous names with fúck all research into any of the above or they would perform on the pitch. Pogba still divides opinion with his fee of £80mil. Same as Di Maria, Schweinsteiger, Falcao, plenty others.

Yes a lot got excited about Sanchez, including myself, and he turned out to be a dud. Literally his job is to sign players to improve the squad and Sanchez probably turned out to be the worst signing in United's history given his wages, etc.

Our best signing in 7 years is probably Bruno Fernandes and the recruitment has been decent in the past 12 months although vastly overpaying. There is zero strategy in how United do things and it's plain obvious. Throw enough shít at the wall and eventually something will stick.

United have spent absurd amounts of money, absolutely, but nothing to show for it. £500 odd million and the 2nd highest net spend in the last 5 years and only a Europa League/League Cup to show for it?

I have zero symapthy for Ed.

DM_7

Drumpot wrote: »

I don’t want to go round In circles Mitch but it’s like bidding on a player you want. You find out if they are interested before making a bid.

The Glazers don’t buy the club without talking with SAF, they just don’t. He wasn’t just another manager of a club , he was the club and without him they couldn’t of pulled it off. They needed at worst, him to be quiet, at best support them. If they buy the club and he quits , the value goes down straight away and given how they have managed the club since he retired , there’s an extra variable for them to manage.

Yes, maguire and McManus did make a profit by selling up but they fell out with the golden goose of that investment. They fell out hard, Ferguson is not a forgiving person. What do you think the value of the club would of gone to has Ferguson quit before they sold? It’s not that much of a stretch to see the business benefit of getting away from United in that scenario.

Have you any source for that particular line of view on SAFs involvement?

We know the initial arrival of McManus and Magnier helped SAF's position as he looked to get more freedom to invest in the team in early 00s.

McManus and Magnier were understood to be looking to take United over yet took the chance to build up their stake in United during the row, keeping it below the 30% that would trigger a fornal take over.

They reportedly looked to position for the removal of Ferguson, in the midst of the very public spat they put pressure on United's transfer dealings including SAFs role, his son's role, with their 99 questions. The end result seeing SAFs son banned from dealings with the club and SAF put on a rolling annual contract deal rather than a multi year deal. None of the above suggests to me they were that worried about SAF leaving or the share price.

I have no issue with the idea that SAF was glad to see McManus and Magnier out and new owners in, I just don't see a scenario where the Glazers were looking to Ferguson for some sort of approval before going with a takeover. They bought into United in early 03, before the Cubic Expression purchase of 10% in Oct 03 (from BSkyB) and it was May 2005 before the shares of McManus and Magnier were bought up, for 230million (reportedly making them 80million in on their initial payments).

Drumpot

DM_7 wrote: »

Have you any source for that particular line of view on SAFs involvement?

We know the initial arrival of McManus and Magnier helped SAF's position as he looked to get more freedom to invest in the team in early 00s.

McManus and Magnier were understood to be looking to take United over yet took the chance to build up their stake in United during the row, keeping it below the 30% that would trigger a fornal take over.

They reportedly looked to position for the removal of Ferguson, in the midst of the very public spat they put pressure on United's transfer dealings including SAFs role, his son's role, with their 99 questions. The end result seeing SAFs son banned from dealings with the club and SAF put on a rolling annual contract deal rather than a multi year deal. None of the above suggests to me they were that worried about SAF leaving or the share price.

I have no issue with the idea that SAF was glad to see McManus and Magnier out and new owners in, I just don't see a scenario where the Glazers were looking to Ferguson for some sort of approval before going with a takeover. They bought into United in early 03, before the Cubic Expression purchase of 10% in Oct 03 (from BSkyB) and it was May 2005 before the shares of McManus and Magnier were bought up, for 230million (reportedly making them 80million in on their initial payments).

No more then most people have flimsy sources for most of the stuff discussed here. I think its a reasonably educated guess based on what little we do know.

The relationship of Magnier/McManus and Ferguson, doesnt change the fact that Ferguson was a significant part of the company they were buying. Not just that, regardless of what you think of SAF position at the time, him being sacked or leaving after the Glazers taking over the club would of made their leveraged takeover even more fraught with turmoil. While they didnt care about what the fans thought, they must of done some sort of risk analysis in terms of what fans would accept.

Its not so much that they needed SAF approval to make the sale happen, moreso that having an ally like Ferguson and the continuity of a long term serving manager would help make the sale and subsequent fan buy in easier. They were gearing the club with massive debt, at the time it was something like 80% of the value. I think at the time the interest was 70million per year (more then the world record transfer Figo at 60milion at the time).

Then there is the bigger question of finance. They weren't using their own money, so they had to convince investors to supply them with the loans to make United the most debt ridden club in the world. How do you convince investors that works ? Is it easier with a manager who has the best record of any at the time in the world or by sacking or replacing that manager as part of your plans ? You need to know SAF is on your side before you can say he will be heading your version of Man United. Would Investors of given them the loans with no SAF ? I don't know, but its a reasonable assumption to think it added strength to their presentation to investors. I dont think they get those loans with no plan regarding the footballing side("maybe we will have SAF, maybe we wont, we havent decided yet") so I think that he was part of the deal.

DM_7

Drumpot wrote: »

No more then most people have flimsy sources for most of the stuff discussed here. I think its a reasonably educated guess based on what little we do know.

The relationship of Magnier/McManus and Ferguson, doesnt change the fact that Ferguson was a significant part of the company they were buying. Not just that, regardless of what you think of SAF position at the time, him being sacked or leaving after the Glazers taking over the club would of made their leveraged takeover even more fraught with turmoil. While they didnt care about what the fans thought, they must of done some sort of risk analysis in terms of what fans would accept.

Its not so much that they needed SAF approval to make the sale happen, moreso that having an ally like Ferguson and the continuity of a long term serving manager would help make the sale and subsequent fan buy in easier. They were gearing the club with massive debt, at the time it was something like 80% of the value. I think at the time the interest was 70million per year (more then the world record transfer Figo at 60milion at the time).

Then there is the bigger question of finance. They weren't using their own money, so they had to convince investors to supply them with the loans to make United the most debt ridden club in the world. How do you convince investors that works ? Is it easier with a manager who has the best record of any at the time in the world or by sacking or replacing that manager as part of your plans ? You need to know SAF is on your side before you can say he will be heading your version of Man United. Would Investors of given them the loans with no SAF ? I don't know, but its a reasonable assumption to think it added strength to their presentation to investors. I dont think they get those loans with no plan regarding the footballing side("maybe we will have SAF, maybe we wont, we havent decided yet") so I think that he was part of the deal.

Thanks for clarifying it is speculation, I thought I missed something.

I think convincing financial backers was not based on SAF, the initial funds raised on top of a bank loan and their own investment included 275million sterling from a hedge fund loan on a payment in kind basis with 14.75% interest rate and penalties for early redemption. The finances dictated the support, not SAF.

StringerBell

I had heard we have come in with a late bid for Gabriel and that he now has to decide between ourselves arsenal and Napoli, but don't see it mentioned here at all so assume I heard wrong or it was just bull****.

Drumpot

DM_7 wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying it is speculation, I thought I missed something.

I think convincing financial backers was not based on SAF, the initial funds raised on top of a bank loan and their own investment included 275million sterling from a hedge fund loan on a payment in kind basis with 14.75% interest rate and penalties for early redemption. The finances dictated the support, not SAF.

The premium on the loans reflected the risk of the investment at the time. EPL Tv money was not what it is now, the interest alone on the Loans was going to be significantly more per year then an EPL winner would get and we weren’t guaranteed to win . So then you are pitching that you will tap into the marketing potential, which I imagine represented the majority of their sales pitch to investors they had to convince was a viable business plan.

I don’t believe that they managed to bag the financial backing to buy the club without a massive consideration regarding on field targets. And when I say on field targets, I mean the correlation between success of marketing and a successful on field club. Unless there is information to the contrary, I was under the impression that SAF was always going to continue on as manager. Therefore he was always factored in the equation in the takeover. As we have seen since 2013, the glazers don’t know how to run the footballing side of a club. This surely would of been a concern of an investor and a working Gill/SAF combo would of been a reasonable way to address this concern.

To what degree this played a role you can argue, but I don’t see how they get hundreds of millions to buy a football club without any actual on field strategy to compliment their marketing strategy/goals. SAF was their on field strategy. Would they of gotten the same premium with any other manager? Would they of gotten the backing? Would leveraging the club with massive debt and sacking the greatest manager of the club been seen as a good bet at the time? Marketing wise alone it would of been an even bigger gamble, especially if SAF replacement didn’t pay off. So I think it was a less risky prospect on multiple levels from an investor perspective with SAF in charge.

DARK-KNIGHT

I get the sancho hype hell i have thrown photos of him up on facebook to annoy certain fans i know but lets be honest there are much deeper issues at the core of the team. the defense is woeful, we badly need a cdm and another midfield option and another forward player, actually we need two forward players as ighalo is on loan.... its a ****ing mess, fear the champions league unless we pull out some incredible signings

If getting sancho stops us signing those players then forget sancho now before its too late

Cotts72

StringerBell wrote: »

I had heard we have come in with a late bid for Gabriel and that he now has to decide between ourselves arsenal and Napoli, but don't see it mentioned here at all so assume I heard wrong or it was just bull****.

Yeah there's been a bit reported on twitter by sky and the telegraph or times. I'd imagine it's just standard link utd to make more money tactic