The Manchester United Thread

[Theatreof Dreams]

Imagine how strong that right side would look if they'd only listen to you and pair him with Otemandi.

Ramos .........Otamendi

 

[Joel`]

IF you qualify for the Champions League directly you could reason that. But that's gotten cut in half with Chelsea and Citeh's money. 2 of the top 4 are more or less guaranteed for the foreseeable. You're then down to one of Arsenal, United or Liverpool missing out. Two years ago it was United. Last year it was Liverpool. No guarantee which of the three will miss this next season.

That's a big 'if' to gamble on with no guarantee that will happen. Or he'll be as professional and committed through the last year. (Nothing makes me think he wouldn't FWIW. Just the possibilities there.).

I fully understand the reasoning. I just think it's a crazy scenario to gamble on that and let a substantial fee walk out the door for nothing regardless.

After we screwed over McManaman way back when and ended up losing him the following year for nothing, I honestly thought this wouldn't happen again but clubs seem oblivious to the risk they stand to lose. Arsenal keep doing the same with Walcott for example.

I don't get it at all.

You're arguing that because we have a risk of dropping out of the CL, we should sell our keeper/one of our best players for relatively peanuts, and thus reducing our chance of qualifying for the CL? Logic.

If you want to go down that line, the value of De Gea propelling us towards the CL is worth far, far more in prize money and sponsorship than £20m.

Finally, your assumption that City/Chelsea are safe while Arsenal/United/Liverpool are not is ridiculous. Firstly, Liverpool shouldn't even be listed, they have nowhere near the financial power of the others. They're more like a Spurs, who are capable of stringing a good season together and qualifying, rather than being a consistent top 4 team. Secondly, City and Chelsea are no more safe than the others. They have little if no more spending power than their rivals. And let's not forget, Chelsea DID drop out of the top 4 a few seasons ago, and City's form last season for large parts was nowhere near what should be expected of them.

Your arguments are ridiculous. You can argue from a business perspective all you like, but to United, £20m is just another noodle sponsorship, and the opportunity cost of a poor season without him far outweighs £20m.

I don't know. Wouldn't it be better to get a keeper in and let him get used to the EPL for one season? I mean we all saw how foreign keepers like De Gea and Courtois struggled in their first season when coming in from a foreign country even when Courtois had a established defense in front of him. Unless of course you are planning to buy Lloris or smt as his replacement

By that logic we're going to have train a keeper to get used to the PL at SOME point in the future, be it the coming season or the one after it. I'd much rather do that with De Gea for another year when we've had the opportunity to move ourselves towards being title challengers again (instead of aiming for a top 4 finish), rather than selling him for no reward now, and ripping up the progress we made last season.

 

[Alcaraz]

By that logic we're going to have train a keeper to get used to the PL at SOME point in the future, be it the coming season or the one after it. I'd much rather do that with De Gea for another year when we've had the opportunity to move ourselves towards being title challengers again (instead of aiming for a top 4 finish), rather than selling him for no reward now, and ripping up the progress we made last season.

By that logic, all the consequences you stayed of De Gea leaving will happen at some point in the future. Won't it be better to just do it now and let the new keeper and defense gel rather than gambling on success for one season, losing him for nothing next summer and then starting from square one. Tbf with you, I can see the benefits for both sides in this debate. It's not an easy decision to make

 

[Mike.]

Manchester United apparently don't have a ladies team. Anyone knows the reason?

Glazers shut it down in 2005. There is no reason at all why we shouldn't have one. It's disgusting we don't

 

[Joel`]

By that logic, all the consequences you stayed of De Gea leaving will happen at some point in the future. Won't it be better to just do it now and let the new keeper and defense gel rather than gambling on success for one season, losing him for nothing next summer and then starting from square one. Tbf with you, I can see the benefits for both sides in this debate. It's not an easy decision to make

We're more likely to be successful in two seasons time when we can add a goalkeeper to an established defence, rather than adding a new keeper AND defence next season, IMO.

 

[Alcaraz]

Glazers shut it down in 2005. There is no reason at all why we shouldn't have one. It's disgusting we don't

Agreed completely mate. Hopefully fans and media pressure the club into reinstating one

 

[Mike.]

Joel, you've nailed it and I'm not going to waste anymore time on that argument.

 

[Mike.]

Agreed completely mate. Hopefully fans and media pressure the club into reinstating one

Fans have been to be fair. The England women's success will put more on. Here's to a change

 

[Alcaraz]

We're more likely to be successful in two seasons time when we can add a goalkeeper to an established defence, rather than adding a new keeper AND defence next season, IMO.

Its all if and buts at this point as you mentioned. From a United POV, I think not selling is the better option not so much as because you keep De Gea for one more season but more that it shows Madrid that they can't troop in and take whoever they like

 

[Vanjagl]

You can have the most profitable business in the World, in whatever line; and losing £20 million is still a substantial hit.

But hey, if you're happy and stand by the club doing that, fair enough. It's your club and no biggie to me.

Don't bemoan it though if you miss the Champions League. Which would be compounded if you don't navigate the qualifier this year which is never easy early season.

It seems that you don't understand what we are trying to tell you. Having De Gea for one more season is much better than 20 million pounds. It's all about doing the right thing for the club. Having established goalkeeper with relatively new defense is probably going to cost less than having new gk and new defense. Second, De Gea is one of the best GKs in the world, that alone is worth 20 millions, if you consider how many points he saved last season. If he saves half of it this, which I have no doubt he will, that those 20 millions looks like a poor piece of business. With De Gea, we know what we can get from him. He's been consistent through last 3 years and he'll continue being one if something totally strange doesn't happen.

Why would I bemoan if we miss CL? We have much better chance getting there with De Gea than without him.

 

[Tyton]

I don't know. Wouldn't it be better to get a keeper in and let him get used to the EPL for one season? I mean we all saw how foreign keepers like De Gea and Courtois struggled in their first season when coming in from a foreign country even when Courtois had a established defense in front of him. Unless of course you are planning to buy Lloris or smt as his replacement

Remember they don't have a sugar daddy, they rely on sponsor money. After two extremely dry seasons it is critical for them to prove their reputation for consistent success, which is what brought the sponsors to the club in the first place. 20 million for de Gea is a drop in the bucket compared to what they might lose if sponsors start moving elsewhere.

Besides, Lorris would command huge contract signing bonus and wages, so its prolly like 10m saved, not 20.

 

[Scouseinthehouse]

I'm not misunderstanding anything Vanjagl.

I just don't agree with your reasoning.

But hey, you're happy with the clubs stance so if you force him to see out that last year, good luck to you.

 

[Alcaraz]

Remember they don't have a sugar daddy, they rely on sponsor money. After two extremely dry seasons it is critical for them to prove their reputation for consistent success, which is what brought the sponsors to the club in the first place. 20 million for de Gea is a drop in the bucket compared to what they might lose if sponsors start moving elsewhere.

Besides, Lorris would command huge contract signing bonus and wages, so its prolly like 10m saved, not 20.

I doubt it mate. Sponsors would always be attracted to United because of it's huge fan base. And that is not something that will change with one poor season or for a long time

 

[Joel`]

I doubt it mate. Sponsors would always be attracted to United because of it's huge fan base. And that is not something that will change with one poor season or for a long time

True, but we can attract large, 10 year deals because sponsors expect us to be performing at the same level as we are now, parading their logos around the world in CL matches for every year of that contract. If that becomes inconsistent, we become higher risk, and if we're higher risk - they'll pay less.

 

[dasty]

It is simply easier for a new goalkeeper to settle in when the defensive four in front of him is already stable. A new GK + a new back four going into the new season is just asking for trouble, especially when the expectations for LVG next season is pretty high. It is simply a safer choice to let De Gea see out the remainder of his contract while a new back four takes form in front of him this season, instead of letting him go for peanuts, bring in a new GK, and have him trying to settle in together with the back four.

Considering how fickle the intelligent English media is, the new GKs and defenders might be all be labelled flops before the season had even ended, thus affecting their confidence and resulting in an even longer time for the whole defense to settle down. All the while running the risk of underachieving or even missing out on CL due to a poor defense. If De Gea stays for 1 more season, the defenders can bed in slowly while knowing that they can rely on him to bail them out, and once they're settled and De Gea is leaving, the bedding in period for the new GK would be much smoother as well.

If the club could spare all that trouble for the sake of 13m pounds which isn't crucial at all to the club seeing that we are not desperate for money, I don't see why we should take the risk at all. Selling De Gea for a measly 13m while running the risk of losing out the CL spot as well as affecting the bedding in of the new defender signings sounds like a perfect example of penny wise pound foolish.

 

[iNickStuff]

Compared to some other clubs who seem to be sitting on their hands, the tempo at which we are doing our transfer business is both encouraging and refreshing.

 

[Theatreof Dreams]

Compared to some other clubs who seem to be sitting on their hands, the tempo at which we are doing our transfer business is both encouraging and refreshing.

Yes especially if we get Darmian and Schniederlin done before the tour.

 

[Theatreof Dreams]

Just watched a quick vid of the lads training. DDG was laughing and smiling and I could see Love,Wier and Rothwell also. May have been more.

 

[zzeezzy]

Compared to some other clubs who seem to be sitting on their hands, the tempo at which we are doing our transfer business is both encouraging and refreshing.

Technically we haven't done anything yet apart from Depay which was largely down to LVG. Lets not get too carried away until the business is actually done, also lets not forget that it is vital it is done quicker than later, for best preparation to a crucial season where we can hopefully compete again.

 

[Theatreof Dreams]

Technically we haven't done anything yet apart from Depay which was largely down to LVG. Lets not get too carried away until the business is actually done, also lets not forget that it is vital it is done quicker than later, for best preparation to a crucial season where we can hopefully compete again.

Stay positive man