The Manchester United Thread

[Mike.]

The only reason you would join PSG over United is for non-footballing reasons, such as living in a nicer place with more things to do and of course the money. There is no way the French league compares to the English Premier League. Infact it would struggle to be in the top 5 leagues in Europe. Not to mention the French league is pretty much a one team league now, so where is the real competition going to be.

Not to mention how does PSG fit in with the FFP rules, it won't be much of a project if they get kicked out of Europe in a few seasons.

No I am not bitter, I just hate how money is dictating the game now, the passion of football is being lost and playing for clubs like ourselves most players would dream of, but now you can get youngsters where other clubs funded by big daddys can get them due to the money they offer (more often than not), or the location of the club (yeh right of course, how far is it to get from Manchester to Paris if he really wanted to be there in his spare time, when you consider training/travelling and matches, you won't get much spare time anyway).

I have no reason to be bitter though, United didn't really need him, but I would be telling a porky if I said I was not disappointed in losing out on yet another one of our targets.

How many chances does Fergie want to get a CM though, Vidal was on a plate to go in and get when he was up for grabs, maybe United would not of got him anyway but you would of had a chance. Now you have Nuri Sahin who is practically being pushed out the door by Mourinho, saying he can leave. Nuri is top class and if we miss out on him then I really think Fergie/scouts have lost the plot completely. The money has obviously been there, Kagawa, Berbatov etc. Going for someone like RVP and not a CM like Nuri Sahin is madness and just plain poor.

Except its widely recognised as being in the Top 5 Leagues, its chasing hard to overtake Italy. he's going to be playing alongside world class stars, and play Champions league football. PSG or United, its a step up from Sao Paulo in his eyes. And he gets paid well. Money, ambitions, elite football, world class talent excellent reasons to go to PSG. Oh and its hardly a one team league, since PSG didnt even win Ligue 1. If you think all our players joined just for passion, you'd be wrong. Your argument doesnt stand up to much scrutiny.

Oh yeah, we didnt match their bid anyway.

 

[zzeezzy]

Except its widely recognised as being in the Top 5 Leagues, its chasing hard to overtake Italy. he's going to be playing alongside world class stars, and play Champions league football. PSG or United, its a step up from Internacional in his eyes. And he gets paid well. Money, ambitions, elite football, world class talent excellent reasons to go to PSG. Oh and its hardly a one team league, since PSG didnt even win Ligue 1. If you think all our players joined just for passion, you'd be wrong. Your argument doesnt stand up to much scrutiny.

Oh yeah, we didnt match their bid anyway.

1. Spain/England

2. Spain/England

3. Germany

4. Italy

5. France

That is their position probably roughly in league standings across Europe, yeh you are probably right they have caught up with Italian football, but most of that is through Italian football declining, not French football improving. Montpellier did extremely well to win the Ligue 1 over PSG last season, but if you look at all the teams on paper, PSG are miles ahead and should dominate the league easily. The Montpellier manager done a wonder to win that league with that team on paper, no one expected it to be them.

Oh and he never played for Internacional, he played for Sao Paulo.

 

[Joel`]

1. Spain/England

2. Spain/England

3. Germany

4. Italy

5. France

That is their position probably roughly in league standings across Europe, yeh you are probably right they have caught up with Italian football, but most of that is through Italian football declining, not French football improving. Montpellier did extremely well to win the Ligue 1 over PSG last season, but if you look at all the teams on paper, PSG are miles ahead and should dominate the league easily. The Montpellier manager done a wonder to win that league with that team on paper, no one expected it to be them.

Oh and he never played for Internacional, he played for Sao Paulo.

He didn't have the option of United, it was PSG or stay in Brazil.

Why do you care that a £35m luxury signing in a position we have well covered isn't joining?

 

[craig curtis]

He didn't have the option of United, it was PSG or stay in Brazil.

Why do you care that a £35m luxury signing in a position we have well covered isn't joining?

Looks like we after RVP then that will be it what you reckon? Hope he got a sneeky deal going on somewhere on the hush hush

 

[Joel`]

Looks like we after RVP then that will be it what you reckon? Hope he got a sneeky deal going on somewhere on the hush hush

Think he can be injury prone and unneeded, but it's hard to not be excited by the prospect of a Rooney/RVP partnership.

 

[craig curtis]

Think he can be injury prone and unneeded, but it's hard to not be excited by the prospect of a Rooney/RVP partnership.

Yeah agree not needed, but seems to be the only one fergie really pushing for but would have major wet one watching them play together. Just shame no news on CM front:'(

 

[thekill]

i am starting to believe anderson and cleverley have been told to prove themselves in performance and fitness wise till december before the next window otherwise they will be sold and new guys brought.Carrick,scholes,giggs,anderson,cleverely for league/champions league and other reserves will play cup matches.Plus kagawa might drop deep like rooney to help in midfield.

 

[Irish Scouse]

Except its widely recognised as being in the Top 5 Leagues, its chasing hard to overtake Italy. he's going to be playing alongside world class stars, and play Champions league football. PSG or United, its a step up from Sao Paulo in his eyes. And he gets paid well. Money, ambitions, elite football, world class talent excellent reasons to go to PSG. Oh and its hardly a one team league, since PSG didnt even win Ligue 1. If you think all our players joined just for passion, you'd be wrong. Your argument doesnt stand up to much scrutiny.

Oh yeah, we didnt match their bid anyway.

Not to mention living in Paris is an attraction in itself.

 

[Joel`]

Not to mention living in Paris is an attraction in itself.

But an outrageously high tax rate is a bit of a ******.

 

[Subtle]

No I am not bitter, I just hate how money is dictating the game now, the passion of football is being lost and playing for clubs like ourselves most players would dream of, but now you can get youngsters where other clubs funded by big daddys can get them due to the money they offer

Without wanting to start a massive **** storm, you are aware that you support Manchester United right? It's not like you haven't used your considerable economic clout to batter other clubs out of contention in the past, nor have you been afraid to break transfer records and pay pretty ridiculous prices for much wanted players. It's hardly a new thing either is it? Liverpool, Madrid etc are all guilty of doing it in the past and that somehow seems to glossed over by everyone's nostalgia.

Being a Chelsea fan, I can hardly talk this sort of thing but you'll notice that I don't. I may be concerned with the effect money is having on football and where it will ultimately lead but when we missed out on players like Neymar and when we recently started trying to go for cheaper squad players like Marin and Moses in addition to marquee signings, did I moan that the likes of City and PSG were ruining the game? No, because it would be hypocritical and motivated by nothing other than bitterness. After all, if I really found it to be as utterly abhorrent as some people make it out to be, I wouldn't support Chelsea would I?

People in glass houses and all that...

 

[Puddz]

Without wanting to start a massive **** storm, you are aware that you support Manchester United right? It's not like you haven't used your considerable economic clout to batter other clubs out of contention in the past, nor have you been afraid to break transfer records and pay pretty ridiculous prices for much wanted players. It's hardly a new thing either is it? Liverpool, Madrid etc are all guilty of doing it in the past and that somehow seems to glossed over by everyone's nostalgia.

Being a Chelsea fan, I can hardly talk this sort of thing but you'll notice that I don't. I may be concerned with the effect money is having on football and where it will ultimately lead but when we missed out on players like Neymar and when we recently started trying to go for cheaper squad players like Marin and Moses in addition to marquee signings, did I moan that the likes of City and PSG were ruining the game? No, because it would be hypocritical and motivated by nothing other than bitterness. After all, if I really found it to be as utterly abhorrent as some people make it out to be, I wouldn't support Chelsea would I?

People in glass houses and all that...

I agree with you that it's hypocritical of Man Utd fans to say that money is ruining football considering Man Utd broke a lot of transfer records in the past. The only difference is that teams like Real Madrid, Chelsea and PSG have a sugar daddy backing them using his own money. As far as I'm aware, Man Utd have never had that kind of person helping them. They have always used the money they make to buy the players. I think that's what people are annoyed about. Or in my case, Annoyed and kind of upset about. Imagine what Man Utd could be if Roman took over United and not Chelsea.

 

[zzeezzy]

Without wanting to start a massive **** storm, you are aware that you support Manchester United right? It's not like you haven't used your considerable economic clout to batter other clubs out of contention in the past, nor have you been afraid to break transfer records and pay pretty ridiculous prices for much wanted players. It's hardly a new thing either is it? Liverpool, Madrid etc are all guilty of doing it in the past and that somehow seems to glossed over by everyone's nostalgia.

Being a Chelsea fan, I can hardly talk this sort of thing but you'll notice that I don't. I may be concerned with the effect money is having on football and where it will ultimately lead but when we missed out on players like Neymar and when we recently started trying to go for cheaper squad players like Marin and Moses in addition to marquee signings, did I moan that the likes of City and PSG were ruining the game? No, because it would be hypocritical and motivated by nothing other than bitterness. After all, if I really found it to be as utterly abhorrent as some people make it out to be, I wouldn't support Chelsea would I?

People in glass houses and all that...

It's a fair point, Manchester United have splashed out on numerous occasions on players, but you have to remember a key thing, we are not backed by a sugar daddy, the club is self sustainable and more often than not we have used the money we have created to spend on signings. At the moment is not a good example, as we are being run by Glazers who seem to want to bleed us dry, without really realising it would benefit them more if the club was not in debt.

 

[Joel`]

It's a fair point, Manchester United have splashed out on numerous occasions on players, but you have to remember a key thing, we are not backed by a sugar daddy, the club is self sustainable and more often than not we have used the money we have created to spend on signings. At the moment is not a good example, as we are being run by Glazers who seem to want to bleed us dry, without really realising it would benefit them more if the club was not in debt.

Not true. They simply cannot afford to run the club debt free, since they are themselves up the financial **** creek.

 

[zzeezzy]

Not true. They simply cannot afford to run the club debt free, since they are themselves up the financial **** creek.

No because they can not pay off the debt they put on the club when they took over, which is the most annoying part.

 

[Joel`]

No because they can not pay off the debt they put on the club when they took over, which is the most annoying part.

The Glazer family itself (excluding United) is over a billion in debt.

 

[Joel`]

Actually, read it wrong, includes their United asset. But still, they can't afford to run the club on their own finances.

 

[hughesman]

I have to say that the clubs who have the history such as man Utd, Liverpool, Barca Real just to name few, they have built up an amazing haul of trophies in the gam, building their status and reputation, which then in turn would increase profit margins and make the players want to sign for the club for the success, not the money. Granted some of the clubs mentioned above have sugar daddy's but they deserve it for the success, it's simple buisness. I have a major problem with the sugar daddy's who come in to a club with little history and make them into super teams with super money. It ruins the game as the next gen players want the money not the success. 10-15 years ago you would never see the big names of the game leaving to a less historic team. What really brings home this point is can you see a player say from Man City's academy rising through from reserve to first team and staying there for the whole carear? No because City will just buy a player instead of creating them. Only players from Barca, Arsenal man Utd will do this. Because that's what they do.

 

[Alcaraz]

It's a fair point, Manchester United have splashed out on numerous occasions on players, but you have to remember a key thing, we are not backed by a sugar daddy, the club is self sustainable and more often than not we have used the money we have created to spend on signings. At the moment is not a good example, as we are being run by Glazers who seem to want to bleed us dry, without really realising it would benefit them more if the club was not in debt.

I agree with you that it's hypocritical of Man Utd fans to say that money is ruining football considering Man Utd broke a lot of transfer records in the past. The only difference is that teams like Real Madrid, Chelsea and PSG have a sugar daddy backing them using his own money. As far as I'm aware, Man Utd have never had that kind of person helping them. They have always used the money they make to buy the players. I think that's what people are annoyed about. Or in my case, Annoyed and kind of upset about. Imagine what Man Utd could be if Roman took over United and not Chelsea.

Manchester United have a huge global fanbase and a massive presence around the world. This means that the amount you rake in through commercial revenues- Merchandising sales etc. is far greater tha other clubs barring a select few. This in turn helps you build a brand that sponsors around the world want to be associated with due to its huge value and will pay huge sums of money to have their company name on the same shirt as Manchester United. The massive amount of money you make simply through your brand value and global fanbase allows you to spend whatever you make since you anyways make so much

So then the question is how do clubs like Chelsea compete? We obviously do not have the sort of brand value or global fanbase you have and will never do so. This automatically means that whatever we make through commercial revenues or sponsorships will obviously be lower than yours.

Over the years two methods have come to the fore for clubs like Chelsea hoping to compete- Have an exceptional youth talent spotter and developer (Wenger) who can buy young and cheap which will be sustainable for a club. Problem is that these type of managers are extremely rare and lady luck must shine on your brightly to come across one not known to the world yet

The other way which is far more easier and probable is to have a sugar daddy back the club. Someone who will go out and entice top-class players to arrive by offering them huge wages etc. Obviously this means that these clubs will almost all the time spend out of their means initially bu then remember, if Chelsea only spent within their means during the formative years of the Ambramovich era, we will not get anywhere because we don't/never will make as much as Manchester United

So take note that having a sugar daddy is only balancing the scales and not really tipping it in Chelsea's favour as you seem to suggest. Its your own fault that unlike clubs such as Bayern Munich/Real Madrid, you do not use your commerical revenues to strengthen the squad but it rather goes into relieving the debt imposed on your club.

Also remember that the only reason Chelsea/Manchester City can continue to enjoy good backing from sponsors is if they continue to perform on the pitch. Our Samsung shirt deal expires last summer and one of their top dogs came out and said last season when things were not going so well that they wanted to be 'associated with a winning and not losing team'.

So this shows us that if we want to continue to make good sponsorship money we have to perform on the pitch day in and day out. The only way we can ensure we do this is by spending big in the transfer market to get the best players in. We are not Liverpool who can still enjoy a huge shirt sponsorship deal despite doing ****-poor in the last few seasons. Why? Because we do not enjoy the sort of brand value or fanbase that Liverpool does

Give Chelsea the sort of brand value and presence you enjoy around the world and I promise you we will run the club in a sustainable way as well. Due to circumstances however, if we want to compete we will need to spend whatever it takes to continue to do so in order to simply compete with Manchester United.

 

[Mike.]

Manchester United have a huge global fanbase and a massive presence around the world. This means that the amount you rake in through commercial revenues- Merchandising sales etc. is far greater tha other clubs barring a select few. This in turn helps you build a brand that sponsors around the world want to be associated with due to its huge value and will pay huge sums of money to have their company name on the same shirt as Manchester United. The massive amount of money you make simply through your brand value and global fanbase allows you to spend whatever you make since you anyways make so much

So then the question is how do clubs like Chelsea compete? We obviously do not have the sort of brand value or global fanbase you have and will never do so. This automatically means that whatever we make through commercial revenues or sponsorships will obviously be lower than yours.

Over the years two methods have come to the fore for clubs like Chelsea hoping to compete- Have an exceptional youth talent spotter and developer (Wenger) who can buy young and cheap which will be sustainable for a club. Problem is that these type of managers are extremely rare and lady luck must shine on your brightly to come across one not known to the world yet

The other way which is far more easier and probable is to have a sugar daddy back the club. Someone who will go out and entice top-class players to arrive by offering them huge wages etc. Obviously this means that these clubs will almost all the time spend out of their means initially bu then remember, if Chelsea only spent within their means during the formative years of the Ambramovich era, we will not get anywhere because we don't/never will make as much as Manchester United

So take note that having a sugar daddy is only balancing the scales and not really tipping it in Chelsea's favour as you seem to suggest. Its your own fault that unlike clubs such as Bayern Munich/Real Madrid, you do not use your commerical revenues to strengthen the squad but it rather goes into relieving the debt imposed on your club.

Also remember that the only reason Chelsea/Manchester City can continue to enjoy good backing from sponsors is if they continue to perform on the pitch. Our Samsung shirt deal expires last summer and one of their top dogs came out and said last season when things were not going so well that they wanted to be 'associated with a winning and not losing team'.

So this shows us that if we want to continue to make good sponsorship money we have to perform on the pitch day in and day out. The only way we can ensure we do this is by spending big in the transfer market to get the best players in. We are not Liverpool who can still enjoy a huge shirt sponsorship deal despite doing ****-poor in the last few seasons. Why? Because we do not enjoy the sort of brand value or fanbase that Liverpool does

Give Chelsea the sort of brand value and presence you enjoy around the world and I promise you we will run the club in a sustainable way as well. Due to circumstances however, if we want to compete we will need to spend whatever it takes to continue to do so in order to simply compete with Manchester United.

This is entirely accurate except where you say its your own fault re: debt.

Not true, since the club didn't and don't have any say in the debt leveraged by the owners.

 

[hughesman]

Give Chelsea the sort of brand value and presence you enjoy around the world and I promise you we will run the club in a sustainable way as well. Due to circumstances however, if we want to compete we will need to spend whatever it takes to continue to do so in order to simply compete with Manchester United.

But what of the other clubs who lose out when their youth talents are poached by a club for big money, being forced to accept the money in order to stay where they are in the league, nevermind about trying to improve themselves. What you say is a very valid point and one i agree with but the clubs who can't compete with chelseas and other top clubs clout lose out in the end in a worse way than Chelsea ever would by transfer market inflations and marketing hype that cost millions, they just can't keep up with.