- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 5,908
- Reaction score
- 202
- Points
- 63
I would say he is worth 20 Mil at a push. Just hoping it doesnt ruin him if he is actually on 100k p/w. He has the potential to be an amazing player.
The Liverpool Thread
- Thread starter Steve*
- Start date
- Replies 44K
- Views 3M
I would say he is worth 20 Mil at a push. Just hoping it doesnt ruin him if he is actually on 100k p/w. He has the potential to be an amazing player.
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
He's 18, and in the WC squad. It's a lot of cash, but considering how good he could become, and how much United need good players, it's not that much. 100k p/w is ridiculous though for an 18 y.o, no matter how good he is.
In two and a half months, Shaw would earn a million pound
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Good young player, not worth that amount but with the premium for young English talent it is expect (However the wages are ridiculous)
Quite ironic that United fans called the likes of City and Chelsea for 'buying' the league for years and now they are struggling all they will do is splash a load of money
100k p/w reportedly to dissuade him from waiting on Chelsea which is his first-choice and who have always had a strong interest in him ...
And they are splashing the cash they earned. You earn and you spend, not sure what's wrong with that.
Again, in this history of PL we are in 4th of 5th when it comes to transfers spent behind Liverpool. Not sure how we are buying the league or anything close to that. Also there are few sources saying we are offering 75K per week.
Also you guys gave 80K to Sturridge when he didn't do anything in the league.
Last edited:
Shouldnt you then extend the same principle to Ambramovich or Mansour. They earned their billions and they spend it as they see fit. What's wrong with that? I think LFCMarshall is just pointing out that the criticism that a team is 'buying the league' by splashing big on players is a bit hypocritical when United try to do the same in order to close the gap between themselves and the top 4
lol.
They (owners) can spend whatever they want, but Chelsea as a club and City as a club didn't earn it. Simple as that and I don't have problem with anyone buying anything that moves.
Problem is how United is buying the league when City, Chelsea, Liverpool have spent more than ManUtd and Liverpool offered massive wages for Sturridge (just like we might for Shaw) and also paid Henderson around 60-70 K..
Re your last point, lol. We have already done that by sacking the manager.
Last edited:
Unlike United who have never received any external cash right? You might be making a lot of money now but it's not as if you didn't have considerable investment into the club to get you into that position in the first place is it?
But it's hard for the club to earn such massive sums on their own without a rich owner coming in and artificially boosting them to a certain level. If your criticism is that Chelsea/City didn't earn the money they spend unlike United then that's stupid because it iis impossible for these 2 clubs to grow organically and reach United's level anytime soon
Not saying United are buying the league. Just saying that the criticism becomes increasingly hypocritical from United fans when United go out and do the exact same thing: Blow every rival club out of the water with their exorbitant transfer fee and wages such as in the case of Shaw
And regarding the last point, you are being extremely arrogant if you think Moyes was the sole reason United fell out of the Top 4 although in my opinion, he was a large reason. Others might beg to differ
Moyes definately wasn't the sole reason. There's some players in there who are not fit to wear the United shirt. Some did try, some had already made their mind up on the new boss and of course injuries played a part too. But the not wanting to play for a new manager has happened at other clubs when a new manager has taken over from a very successful one. Player power ftw eh?
Last edited:
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Im not saying it is a bad thing at all, if you have the money then spend it.
I'm talking about the fans that blame money for teams buying the league, and a lot came from United fans when the likes of Chelsea and City first started challenging
Like i said if you have the money spend it, but after all the criticism City and Chelsea got United will do exactly the same now they're struggling
Never denied that. I remember reading somewhere a certain Business man saved ManUtd in 30s.
Dortmund, Atletico Madrid.
Re your last point, he was the sole reason or like you said major reason.
And every club does that but what Chelsea and City did was taking it to another level. Also not sure why you are pointing out ManUtd fans after what Rodgers said in press and also Liverpool fans talking about Chelsea, City more this season than any season and Arsenal pointing about it since forever.
Dortmund and Atletico have nowhere near your commercial muscle, maybe they're almost equal on the pitch (or perhaps even better), but their revenue will be far below yours.
Well aren't both those clubs being forced to sell their best players off now? So much for growing organically .... Also regarding my last point, as I said, others might beg to differ
It was more about boosting them on the pitch and with proper planning they did it.
But they have improved without any sugar daddy pumping money into the club.
Others can think whatever they want, it hardly makes any difference just like when they said ManUtd won the league but they are just better than poor teams, ManUtd have **** squad but it was Fergie's magic that is winning the league. I have heard it all down the years. It's either Fergie or poor teams that won the league for ManUtd.
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Looks like we're looking into Lallana, Caulker, Ben Davies (oddly enough), so far.
They have but there's plenty of clubs that have had a season or two in the sun before fading away again. The ones that actually turn their success into a continuous pattern of trophies are the exception to the rule, the majority get stuck in a cycle of: produce good players-> do well-> sell good players -> develop new players -> do well ->sell good players-> develop new players etc etc. All it takes, without the financial backing that clubs like United already have, is a bad season or two and it all comes crashing down.
Personally I would like to see stricter rules put in place to curb spending, but I wouldn't differentiate to such an extent. Surely the sheer amount of money being spent is as much of an issue as its origins.
Three good, (fairly) young British players. I wouldn't mind seeing them at the club, as long as the prices/wages are reasonable.