You mean "doing a Lewandowski". ;-)
Alexis Sanchez
- Thread starter DanClancy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Pretty much this.
It was easy for Tottenham to play hardball when you had the player on a long contract. Not like he was going to refuse to play all year if he didn't get his way.
The moment Arsenal stop selling to their rivals is the moment they sort their contract situations. I can't believe it continues to happen... They can dislike selling to a PL rival all they want, but when the player got a year left the club doesn't have many options if a player push for a move to a specific club. How they don't learn from previous mistakes regarding contract situations for their best players baffle me.
Nearly, in Lewy's case BVB played the hardball and didn't want to let him go for iirc proposed 30 mili Euros.
It's really not that easy for Arsenal. When they signed these big earners, they already paid high wage. They don't win anything while trying to renew the contract would mean even more outrageous wage. One the floodgate open, many more players would come asking for significant wage raise. Arsenal model is against this. Players have to take care of themselves too. Arsenal is just staying in between being a top club & the EL meaning their situation is very complicated.
Tottenham didn't exactly sign established players for most part, meaning the starting wage can be way below their worth if the players progress. Then Tottenham can tempt players into contract extension, with wage raise, now hitting about their worth. When the players outgrow Tottenham, Levy would cash in with the right offers
Last edited:
This is, ultimately, about money. Sanchez sees Pogba on reportedly £300k a week, hazard on £200+, aguero on £250, etc. And he looks at himself, easily one of the 3 best players in the league since he signed for arsenal, in the peak of his career, on £140k a week. He knows he can get similar wages as those other top players elsewhere, so why should accept less? Had arsenal offered him £250k a week back in September, he would have signed a new contract with them. The problem is that arsenal didn't even come close to offering that amount
If you want top players, you have to pay them like top players, regardless if you're arsenal or barcelona. End of the story
If you want top players, you have to pay them like top players, regardless if you're arsenal or barcelona. End of the story
Wonder if people will be on Sanchez body language watch this weekend if City give them a hiding.
Sanchez is more influential than Hazard because he plays in a weaker team. We would be fecked without him.
Perhaps with some players, but now even players like the ox and Wilshere wants out and are on their last year. Previously it has happened to a lot of players, heck even Walcott managed to hold the club ransom.
edit: not sure if they want out or are negotiating contracts, could be the latter as far as I know.
I can't judge, but the latter wouldn't be out of possibility. As I said, players may look at other players in the same team when negotiating their new contract. Nobody would want to miss out a potential big raise, in case the wage bar is raised by the bigger players.
Every English team that have won the CL since the turn of the millennium have deserved to win it, whether anybody likes it or not. Liverpool weren't having the best domestic season but they knocked out one of the greatest PL teams of all time in 04/05 Chelsea (granted it was a ghost goal). They pulled one of the most legendary comebacks in the history of football in the final to beat that Milan team as well. Can't tell me they didn't deserve it.
United also knocked out Barca in 2008 on their way to a fiercely contested final with Chelsea which they won on penalties. If you think United didn't win convincingly because they won on penalties then we might as well go ahead and discount every CL final win from any team that's ever won on penalties. They deserved it. Period.
Chelsea in 2012 also deserved it and anyone who thinks otherwise can do one. Between 2004 and 2010 we had shit luck after shit luck after shit luck despite being on of the best teams in the competition and consistently making deep runs. 6 straight semi finals, getting shafted by shit luck almost every time. That crop of players deserved a CL title and they had one last chance to do it in 2012, which they did. They knocked out the greatest club side of all time and made Pep quit. They also beat a great Bayern team in their own country and in their own stadium. feck what you think about the brand of football. I'm sure Arsenal would exchange their "pretty" football for a CL trophy.
Oh and we should have had another all English final in 2009 but UEFA weren't having any of that. If any team, English teams have been hard done by over that time span (recall Nani getting sent off vs Madrid as well + Van Persie's red card at Camp Nou).
Here's the reality: good teams have always found a way to adapt to the tough schedules. The schedule didn't get tougher over the last 5 years. It's always been that way. You can't say on one hand that English teams just won't win in Europe because they have a tougher schedule than everyone and then in occasions that we DO win in Europe, turn around and say it wasn't convincing enough. Despite fighting through the toughest schedule? Come on mate.
I dont think it will just be a matter of his demands (which is £250k/week by all accounts). It would likely be a highest bidder situation.
Sure, if Juve offer 10M and Chelsea offer 50M he is off there and even Sanchez would prefer a team more clearly committed to him (unlike Wenger's idiotic 40M+1quid nonsense).
The fact he is a year from a free transfer probably means 50M tops, while his quality means any team serious about it will be very happy to part with 35M. The difference (15M) is the room for discretion in terms of higher bid vs. Arsenal's willingness to sell. I would fully expect them to take 10M less to avoid selling to any of their Top 4 Trophy rivals.
Any European side offering 40M will get him gift-wrapped.
Juventus can afford imo. They have players they can sell as well. Also they always gets lion share of CL money as Serie A teams gets KO very early (read something like that).
This and I also meant Dortmund's "anybody but Bayern" approach. They would have sold to Real or England, but Lewy only wanted Bayern.
If he is indeed a priority for Conte I hope we do what we did with Cesc and Costa and immedietly act. Go in with a huge offer right away. Shows Alexis how badly the club wants him and gives Arsenal basically the whole window to replace him.
He has to take the blame for the situation himself then - everyone knows that Arsenal don't: i. compete for major trophies, and ii. don't pay comparatively major wages - yet he decided to go there.
It's a bit rich for him to sulk now about not being being one of the best paid players in the world, nor having the major medals to show for his efforts in recent years - he could've joined any number of clubs that would offer him either or both trophies and massive wages, but he joined Arsenal.
He has nobody to blame but himself.
I was not talking about the price. Sanchez has minimal (likely none) interest in it.
I was talking about wages. If Juve pull up every bit of spare change and manage to meet his £250k/w wage demand and in return say United or Chelsea offer £300k/w. What will Sanchez do? Tell the highest bidder to piss off since his basic demand was met.
Back then, only Arsenal really wanted him that bad, the other option would be L'pool.
Tbf, arsenal has spent fair bit of money since then. The bought Ozil in 2013, Sanchez in 2014, Cech in 2015 and last summer they spent £90m.
They really should have been able to compete for the title atleast once in the last 4 seasons. Wenger is just shit and people (other than Jose) didnt know/accept this till two seasons back.
I was only talking about Sanchez options back then in response to other @Antisocial . He would have to compete with Neymar Messi & Suarez if he had stayed. Barcelona wanted to sell him to balance the book. Sanchez just lacked suitors back then. Arsenal happened to be only one who was not too bad while offering good salary
I don't see anything wrong with your post.
I was actually supporting what you said. Sanchez isnt to blame. When he joined arsenal it really did look like arsenal meant business.
Wasn't he linked to both us and City that same window but he/his wife wanted London? Difficult to say for sure of course since (as we all know) the hacks will link both us and City with anyone and we both had previous with him back when he joined Barca, but if the interest was there then both would've been better bets for wages, and City would've had him competing for trophies. I can't remember if PSG were linked with him then as well - it seems like an obvious link to make, but then PSG and di Maria were busy making eyes at each other all summer so probably not.
Fair enough if Arsenal and Liverpool were really his only options, but still Arsenal under Wenger were well established in terms of expectations.
What the feck does this even mean? The earliest "occasion" an English team won the CL was not convincing by any means. I guess I'll "do one", but it was some of the most negative, ugly football I've ever seen - effective football, maybe, but it was hardly convincing
You had every player and the working staff parked in front of the goal and were hoofing it up to Torres or Drogba. That's the football Big Sam's teams play. You didn't let the other teams play football, that's not convincing. Convincing would be beating them head to head, not winning the one way you could. Still a win yes, but not convincing. You go on to use examples like United against Madrid which just further validates my point that you need more than a good squad to win, which contradicts your point about the "good squads finding a way to manage". Simply being good isn't enough, the other European teams are much better, play better football and can rest their best players in league games to keep them fit for the CL.
I don't wear tinted spectacles. How crowded the English team's schedules are certainly may play a part in how unconvincing we have looked in Europe over the past fecking decade, but it doesn't change the fact that we still have.
You're bringing up examples from 2008, which is nearly a decade ago, one in which United ourselves also got lucky with an absolute wonder goal by Scholes. Against a Barca team that had a certain young player who would go onto dominate football with his team for the next decade.
All you've done is your post is validate everything I've said, using Chelsea's CL win as a way to illustrate good football is laughable, claiming we have had shit luck (which I mention) then you argue the best teams find a way to deal with fixture congestion, which would mean English teams aren't one of the best teams as we've been fecking dire over the past decade in Europe.
So in your opinion if it wasn't a Barca 2011 style win or Bayern 2013 style, then it's not convincing? If you weren't entertained by the football then it wasn't convincing? What an obtuse way to look at football. And FYI, we DID beat Barca head to head. We won the tie 3-2 on aggregate (1-0 at the Bridge, 2-2- at Camp Nou). So I'm not sure why you've brought that up. Portugal who've just won the Euro this past summer, how much "convincing" football did they really play? Spare me the faux purity mate.What the feck does this even mean? The earliest "occasion" an English team won the CL was not convincing by any means. I guess I'll "do one", but it was some of the most negative, ugly football I've ever seen - effective football, maybe, but it was hardly convincing
You know the funny thing? As good as that Madrid squad was, they got knocked out in the following round. It doesn't matter if your squad is so great and you've rested players. That's not all it takes either. You need some luck as well. And on top of that, you HAVE to get your tactics spot on or you'll be fecked. There are a lot of things that go into winning a CL tie. Not just this "convincing" football you're looking for.
I never said it didn't play a part. But you can't brush aside instances when we've won despite that schedule.
You know the funny thing? That same Barca team a year later who were supposedly invincible weren't supposed to get past Chelsea. Despite dominating possession in that 09 semi final second leg, we had a lot of dangerous chances and they hardly had any. We looked a lot more threatening than they did and we should have had at least two penalties awarded, including blatant hand balls in the box, but the cnut Overbo (who has since admitted himself that he fecked up) was hell bent on fecking us over that night. All of a sudden Iniesta hits one in the 92nd minute from outside the box and they go through on that. You tell me if Barca's "great" squad and their easier schedule and "convincing" football is what helped them make it past us that year.
Errr....no, I haven't. I never said Chelsea's win was "good football". I only illustrated that your "good football" is irrelevant and now I've further explained to you that "good football" alone will win you feck all in the CL. There are a lot of different factors involved that have to come together for you (squad quality, no injuries, tactics, luck, etc).
And not once have I said English teams have been good over the last 5 years. Which is why I brought up older examples. We're in a transition period. Even Stevie Wonder can see that. Ever single top team has had that. Juve had theirs (albeit due to being punished) between 06 and 2013. Madrid were in a state of limbo and consistently going out in the QF against Lyon for like half a decade before they bought Ronaldo and what not and found themselves back. Bayern also had a period around 04-08 or so where they were just an okay team. They didn't make SF appearance until 2010 if I'm not mistaken. And then not another one until 2012. Milan and Inter are currently shit and have been since at least 2012, though it looks like that might end soon with their new Chinese owners ready to make investments. The only team who've consistently performed at a top level in the CL for the past 12-13 years is Barca.
We've now come into an era for English football where in addition to the stupid money we now have, we now also have a lot of top coaches that can perform in the CL. After this summer's round of upgrades, I guarantee you we'll bounce back in the CL next season. Hopefully United make it via Europa and there's 5 English teams in it (Liverpool ahead of Arsenal hopefully). Of the 5 I hope to make it, only Spurs are the weak link as far as what I think being able to perform in Europe will take but seeing as they've gotten better every season for 3 straight years, I hope they improve on that this season.
In a nutshell, we went through a transition period as far as pure quality. It had almost nothing to do with our winter schedules and what not. We've always dealt with our difficult schedules and got on with it when we had quality teams. You're focusing on schedules rather than actual quality across the board that's been largely lacking since 2012. Rethink it.
Mate I don't know what the feck you're talking about. You're literally just saying what I'm saying. When the feck did I even mention Barca or Bayern and good football? Yes, if a team plays anti-football, implementing Big Sam tactics to beat a team that is obviously superior to them, that isn't convincing.
Just because a team won, doesn't mean they always deserved it. You yourself even say as much with Barca beating Chelsea all those years ago. The Bayern and the Barca wins you used as examples, that is examples of convincing cup tie wins, showing that they are capable of those wins, something we haven't done for over a decade.You're talking bollocks mate, how the feck am I focusing on the football in question?
Go back and actually read my posts, I talk about how that is one of several factors, I've already mentioned luck etc.You're basing your whole arguement around the quality of football when I have never claimed as much, either actually attempt to read and understand my posts or don't bother replying mate.
I don't give a feck about other teams and their transition periods, that's not what's being discussed here. Stop going off topic. The topic is about English teams and why they've been wank over the past decade, other teams were used as comparison over the past decade, not prior, as the past decade is and always has been the topic of discussion.
I've never claimed good football was the only factor to winning a CL, in fact I've argued the opposite from the beginning so I genuinely don't know what the feck you're talking about. I simply said good football is one of several factors, along with luck and freshness and that given the circumstances we are behind the other European elite in all of those things, for one reason or another.
Last edited:
what thread was this again...I have forgotten. They seem to be all cross pollinating
So in your opinion, what English team since 2000 has deserved their CL win? In your oh so pure view of football. I'm curious. You didn't even answer the Portugal question I asked. Was that "convincing football" to you? I'm trying to know where exactly it starts and stops for you. Maybe you only view invincible teams as "convincing". Also consider the fact that your opinion isn't actually some written rule somewhere and it's just that.....your opinion.Mate I don't know what the feck you're talking about. You're literally just saying what I'm saying. When the feck did I even mention Barca or Bayern and good football? Yes, if a team plays anti-football, implementing Big Sam tactics to beat a team that is obviously superior to them, that isn't convincing.
You're talking bollocks mate, how the feck am I focusing on the football in question?
You're basing your whole arguement around the quality of football when I have never claimed as much, either actually attempt to read and understand my posts or don't bother replying mate.
I don't give a feck about other teams and their transition periods, that's not what's being discussed here. Stop going off topic. The topic is about English teams and why they've been wank over the past decade, other teams were used as comparison over the past decade, not prior, as the past decade is and always has been the topic of discussion.
How the feck is it going off topic to point out to you that pretty much every top team in the world bar Barca has gone through periods of transition that render them average at best in Europe? If that's too hard for you to grasp then I guess there's no point going ahead with this debate. All good mate.
I think Juve were interested as well, but I have no idea how far their interest went
Yep, wasn't he a player Conte requested?
So in your opinion, what English team since 2000 has deserved their CL win? In your oh so pure view of football. I'm curious. You didn't even answer the Portugal question I asked. Was that "convincing football" to you? I'm trying to know where exactly it starts and stops for you. Maybe you only view invincible teams as "convincing". Also consider the fact that your opinion isn't actually some written rule somewhere and it's just that.....your opinion.
How the feck is it going off topic to point out to you that pretty much every top team in the world bar Barca has gone through periods of transition that render them average at best in Europe? If that's too hard for you to grasp then I guess there's no point going ahead with this debate. All good mate.
Are you daft mate? I've never said a win isn't a win if it isn't convincing, you're arguing with your interpretation of my post rather than what I'm actually posting. No, Portugal wasn't a convincing win, they made it to the final barely having actually won a game, that's not convincing, but I'm not trying to argue it wasn't a victory in the end. They won, so convincing or not, it doesn't matter, true, but it still wasn't. I'm not claiming a win has to be convincing for it to be acceptable, simply that the English team's wins over the past decade haven't been.
A convincing win isn't what Chelsea produced, where they didn't give the opposition team freedom to play football. Bournemouth are fecking relegation fodder and even they don't result to those tactics ffs, so how could you genuinely argue having your whole squad sat in front of the goal, parking the bus is a convincing win? Was it a victory in the end? Yes. Was it the only way you were probably capable of beating those teams? Yes again, but in terms of quality, in terms of the football produced, it wasn't up to par, that's what convincing is pal. A team doesn't have to be invincible to be convincing, once again you're arguing "opinions" I've never even said.
It's not relevant because that's never been the topic of discussion, no-one is talking about other teams and their "transition periods" you came in here with that bollocks. I've never mentioned England teams would never catch back up the elite, nor have I claimed the elite will remain so forever, you're speaking bollocks and I genuinely don't think even you know what you're talking about because it's all over the shop.
All I've said is we are far behind those teams, in terms of the football played, in terms of personnel and the added hindrance of no breaks, crowded schedules etc. makes it just that much harder for the English teams as fatigue etc. is a genuine issue. Luck wasn't touched on as much because it's important in all footballing competitions, not just the Champions League but it's obviously still a factor.
Go on then, ask Bournemouth fans if they'd prefer to park the bus and stay up or play "flashy" and go down. Oh at least they'd say the were "convincing" ehy? Lost convincingly, yeah. You sound like one of those people who gave Mayweather stick for his defensive style against Pacquiao despite winning fair and square, just because they didn't get the kind of entertainment they wanted. How the feck can you even see it as "not letting the other team play football"? What were they playing then? Hockey? Do you think there's only one way to play football or what? Anti-football is kicking and trying to deliberately injure the other team's players (a bit like United against Chelsea a few weeks ago), not when you play different tactics. You'd probably call a 0-0 between two Italian teams "boring" because they haven't given you a 4-4 scoreline then. Then again, with how much you've dodged some points and shifted positions, I fully expect you to deny that as well.
Mate, they're called analogies. It's actually possible to be on topic while using different examples to illustrate a point. But I digress.
You've also said the English CL wins over the past 17 years haven't been "convincing" essentially because you haven't been entertained the way you wanted to. So it's not just schedules you've talked about, is it?
Anyway, there's no point going ahead with this. Cheers mate!
Back to Alexis Sanchez.
Wow, you're truly a special case pal
As I've said, literally 5 times now, I don't give a feck if a team wins convincingly, a win is a win, but not all wins are convincing. What about that statement is so hard for you to wrap your head around? I have nothing against teams who have "different tactics" a win is a win, I've enver stated all wins need to be convincing. Simply that the English teams haven't been, I genuinely don't know if you're intentionally being daft as I don't know what's so hard to understand.I support Manchester United, the team's manager is Jose Mourinho who has crafted a whole career of wins out of "alternate tactics" and boring football. I'm also a fan of Mourinho, does that mean I think his teams have played scintillating football and blown everyone out of the water over the years? No, I don't.
You've gone on and spoken bollocks about things I've never even posted, yet again, for the 10th time. When the feck have I even mentioned boring? I'd like you to show me even one case where I have. In fact, I'd like you to show me one place where I've said a team has to win convincingly for it to be accepted. You won't be able to, because you're either extremely thick, or talking bollocks. In fact, i've said the complete opposite, I spoke about how Portugal and Chelsea's wins etc are still wins, regardless of how unconvincing they were.
An analogy?
Give your head a wobble mate, you're using an analogy about a seperate discussion to try and justify your opinion about something I've never even claimed. I've never said other European teams haven't struggled in the past, I never said English teams aren't in a "transition period", nor have I said the elite will forever remain the elite and English teams will never catch up. They're all things you've imagined in your questionable train of thought. All i've claimed is that over the past decade or so and currently, we just haven't been comparable to those teams and discussed the several factors as to why I believed that was.Entertainment and convincing don't go hand in hand. In fact, I'm beginning to question if you know what the word convincingly means. Chelsea in that CL win didn't make the opposition play Hockey, no, but they also didn't let them play an open game of football. As I've already mentioned, I accept the fact that was arguably the only way you were going to win, and congratulations that it paid off, but the fact that you had to result to tactics that not even relegation fodder implement means it wasn't convincing. Big Sam is notorious for those tactics in keeping teams in the Premier League. The same way United playing hoofball to Fellaini is not convincing.
Also lastly, I am going to bold this whole sentence because I'm genuinely worried for your mental capacity as you continue to ignore this fact, I'm not sure if you're wumming or if you're just a very special case but I HAVE NEVER STATED FIXTURE CONGESTION/BREAKS ARE THE ONLY REASON FOR ENGLAND'S SHORT-COMINGS IN EUROPE. YOU ARE ARGUING AN ARGUMENT I NEVER PRESENTED. YOU'RE MAKING YOURSELF LOOK DAFT, PLEASE ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS BEFORE REPLYING WITH YOUR UTTER NONSENSE, THANKS AND HAVE A GOOD DAY.
I give up though, you're arguing and using analogies to try and discount things I've never even said.
Back to Sanchez it is.
Last edited:
One question: what the feck is the point of saying "the win wasn't 'convincing' enough" if it isn't to discredit said win? No, really, what fecking point are you trying to make by mentioning that? I'd really like to know. If you're not trying to paint it as less of a win, then what bloody point are you trying to make? You're not taking the easy way out on this one. Go on. Answer it.Wow, you're truly a special case pal
Really don't care what your thoughts on Mourinho are.
I really should have put a tenner somewhere on you typing out this exact reply. I mean, I predicted it in the same post. Oh and there you go again with "regardless of how unconvincing they were". Mate, who they feck are they supposed to be trying to "convince"? You? Stop being so self important. Fully expect you to reply with "I never said I was self important" or something weird along those lines.
That......is kinda the point of analogies. To use a separate example to illustrate a point. I'm sorry that you haven't been able to grasp that.An analogy?
Really interested in knowing who exactly they're supposed to be trying to convince. If Moyes had won the league with United despite his "unconvincing football" (I assume that's how you see it), do you think he'd have been fired by United? Spare me this purist nonsense.
Could you please use a bigger font size? Can't quite see what you've written. Maybe if it's big enough, you'll read it back to yourself and see that you've completely missed the point of what I was trying to say.
Christ.
If you actually paid attention to the things I've said, you'd understand the whole point of this discussion in the first place that English teams haven't been as good and that there are several factors that go into all of this, fixture congestion only being one of them. I don't need to backtrack because I am discrediting those wins. Not all wins are deserved the same, you've even said as much yourself by crying about how hard done Chelsea were the years prior to their win.
You don't care for my opinions on Jose, but claimed my opinion was irrelevant because I possibly found the victories boring (something I never even said tbf) but for arguments sake, lets assume I did, that's also an analogy, isn't that what you also did? Doesn't that contradict what you yourself did?
Self-important?
Jesus Christ you're a wreck, it's a fecking football forum, they don't give a shite what I think of their victories, never have I claimed so literally anyhwere. Of course I'm going to say as much, because I've never even claimed such a thing. Whether or not they give a shit about my opinion doesn't change the fact that yes, all victories are worth the same, but not all are deserved the same.Moyes wouldn't have won the league with United because he's crafted a whole career out of rubbish football and negative tactics. LVG won the FA cup and still got the sack due to not being able to kill games off convincingly.
Your whole argument is based around the assumption that I claimed fixture congestion was the only factor in England's shortcomings, you even claimed as much at the end of your prior post, when in reality I spoke of that being one of several things, which for some reason you just can't seem to understand.
Anyway, you're a lost cause pal, you're rehashing the same old rubbish and basing your arguments around statements I've never made and your interpretation of my posts instead of what they actually mean. I'm done replying to you pal, this is going nowhere. Have a nice day
Last edited:
A lot of emotions in the sanchez thread. . . What a player!
You said "several factors" once but you rehashed the fatigue factor over and over again in 2 different posts....which is exactly what I was replying to. Stop acting like that wasn't your main point.
Again, I couldn't care less what you think of Jose as a manager. He's your manager, not mine. It's not in my place to tell you or care what you should or shouldn't think of him. Same way I couldn't care less what Arsenal, City or Liverpool fans think of Wenger, Pep and Klopp respectively. It may be entertaining to me from afar but the only manager I care about and care what a certain fanbase think of him is Conte and the fanbase in question is Chelsea fans. I hope that clears it up for you. If you've used that as an analogy, fair enough. I haven't said it's irrelevant. It certainly is. It just doesn't fall into the category of what I care about. Is that a clear enough explanation?
What you don't realize you're implying is that "if you play expansive football and score a lot of goals, you deserve to win more than those who've decided to be careful". That logic of thinking is exactly what I have a problem with, not you personally. It's dismissive, pseudo-elitist and quite frankly, just stupid. Everything that happens within the rules of the game is football and if you get a win within the rules of the game without cheating, you deserve your win as much as anybody. Period. You can say you didn't like it and that would be fair. But to say it's not deserved is just stupid when there's been no cheating going on.Self-important?
LVG didn't win the league though, did he? You think Arsenal fans would be calling for Wenger to get fired if he had won the league title 2 years in a row in 2014 and 2015 rather than the FA Cup? No chance. A league title and an FA Cup aren't even in the same class as far as achievement. If LVG had won the league last year, I'm pretty sure Woodward and the rest of your board would have at least allowed him to finish out the last year of his contract as he'd already indicated he'd be retiring afterwards anyway. And there's no chance Moyes, man who was given a 6 year contract, would be fired after his first season if he'd won the league. Whether you think his brand of football would have won it or not isn't the point. If he'd found a way to win it regardless, he'd have stayed on as manager.
If you've read from my post that I think you said it was the ONLY factor then maybe I should have worded it better. But you certainly made it your main point. Here are the initial posts I saw which made me reply.
You've mentioned luck and quality (which was what I expanded upon re: transition period, since you didn't realize it) but the one point you mentioned over and over again is about schedules and fatigue. But aye, maybe I'm making it up.
As you were.
As I've said, sick of going in circles with you mate. We have derailed this thread enough and are going in circles, lets just agree to disagree.
Well this thread turned out rather akward.
Why aren't we desperate to sign Sanchez? Stealing the best player in the PL from a top 4 rival is a no brainer. RVP 2.0. Offer them Lingard or Smalling in return i'm sure Wenger would bite.
Think Mourinho knew he didn't set his sight on us.