LINK

I find this interesting, there are a lot of aspects to consider with this.

What are your thoughts?

Likely/Unlikely?

Good/Bad?

Views: 57

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No need to get upset just because someone holds a different opinion to you. Yes, I am absolutely sure £50m is not enough and I'm not a fly by night fairweather fan, I'm a realist.

 

£16-£20m million on Jones, £20m on Young, and then De Gea will be about £18m, that's £54 as you've estimated. That is to be expected IF we need the players because

a) The club always get taken to the cleaners and overpay for players because of who we are. and

b) Two of the players are English who you have to pay an extra premium for.

 

It soon adds up and therefore is not a significant amount, as I said IF you need the players, so lets put that to bed.

 

Where you and I disagree is whether another central midfielder is needed. I am all for bringing through the youngsters, but Scholes has just retired, do I want to bring them in and immediately rely on them for 50+ games in their first season? Realistically, the answer is no. Ofcourse there's Carrick, Fletcher and Anderson, but the loss of Scholes leaves a big hole that none of them 3 can fill. I don't want to rehash the same arguments over Carrick and Fletcher, suffice to say I believe they won't be stepping upto the controlling, creative, playmaker role any time soon. So imo we have to buy a central midfielder of quality and that my friend is going to cost Manchester United atleast £30m+ realistically, unless we get lucky and buy Banega (had to sneak him in there). Why holding that opionion annoys you is beyond me but you need to relax a bit lol.

Money is from the bank I think. As in its not from profits and its not going to debt.

I think it just goes to show what their intentions have been all along,it would be an excellent piece of business on their part,the club would have a fixed value that suitors would have to match,they would make almost 500% profit(correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they only use around 300million of their own money).

 

If we make another 30/40 million signing on a top drawer player(like we used to) that might soften the blow and let us see that they do care about  this club,but until then the only impression people have is that they're parasites bleeding the club dry leaving a nasty itch in return.

Like we used to? You do know we signed Berbatov under them for 30.75m  (our most expensive ever signing) and in 2007 summer we spent over 60m. This summer we could well and probably likely spend between 60-80m which is a lot of money. Not saying the Glazers are good for the club but what is certain is that we have 477m worth of bond debt and over 180m of cash in the bank which has not been touched by them for over 2 years. People predicted they would use it to finance the PIK well they did not. I believe our manager when he says money is available, he has no reason to lie.

Yeh you missed my point with Berbatov. The trouble is, he has £30m to spend and he has to decide on one option or the other as I mentioned, whereas sometimes (like now) you need a combination of both for which £30-£50m won't be enough relaistically.

If we spend £60-80m then fair enough.

BTW we spent about £48m in 2007 I thought, and that's not including £28m from player sales so net spend £20m.

 

No we spent 18m on Anderson

17M on Nani

17m on Hargo

 

 

Ah yeh I forgot about Ando, but don't forget we sold a load of players for about £28m. So in effect Fergie was only given about £24m that summer.

Nolhman I don't mean net expenditure,I mean going out and spending 40 million on a Modric or a Snjieder,Scholesy's gone, Carrick and Gibson aren't up to it,we looked like a pub team against Barca,it's time for the Glazers to show their intent and by doing this they would appease a lot of fans

TBH i dont think you can put that at the glazers door.  As much as people hate to say it that part of the game is down to the manger and if there is blame to be placed it needs to be left at fergies doorstep

 

Not least because we had £30m of talent not deemed good enough for the bench

 

Not saying we would have won if berba and nani and ando were on the pitch, but fergie had a plan and went with it and was taught a lesson.  who knows if we had others that people are saying buy in the team would have been on the pitch anyway

Out of them three, you can only make an argument for Berbatov bcos he would have helped with ball retention, which is where we failed. But bearing in mind everyone was waxing lyrical about the great Rooney+Chico partnership, hindsight is a wonderful thing. However, had Berbatov been a central midfielder of equal quality, he would more than likely have been an automatic starter (instead or Giggs or Carrick). That is why we need to spend big on a midfielder.

Do you not understand not every players wants to join Utd. 40M ON MODRIC? for what, 3 goals and 1 assists. No thanks. Gibson is leaving anyway so what is your point. Ferguson is the person who signs players not the Glazers. Ferguson asks for the money and then gets his team to do the deal.
It is their business and they can make as much profit as they like. What is the issue? They are very clever business men and built their own empire. In such a horrible recession they had a massive money making machine which was not effected by the recession. When they are finished they will make over 400% profit on the club. You have to admire them from a business point of view.

RSS

START A DISCUSSION

© 2018   Created by SPORT WITNESS.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service