Who are the front runners for his signature, kouroux?
Eden Hazard | "I am signing for Chelsea"
- Thread starter jdmufc
- 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.
- Status
I have no idea tbh.I just know it's not United 
Rumours persist that his preffered destination in England is Old Trafford.
Why wouldn't it be to be honest.. lol
United will not be willing to invest so much in a player that isn't needed IMHO
Like Gaitan then?? We invest in unnecessary positions all the time. Was Phil Jones and Varane needed, together as well?
Phil Jones was definitely needed when you consider we lost cover at the back in the form of JOS and Wes Brown.
We sold them after Phil Jones not before and we were still in for another centre back after we had Jones, Vidic, Ferdinand, Smalling and Evans.
Not Jones AND Varane. We were in for Varane then teams went in for Jones so SAF went for him instead. And he was needed.
Phil Jones was meant to be brought in January so don't no where you got that from. He was aloud to speak to over clubs because they had agreed the asking price, he was always going to be a United player as long as he agreed terms. At the time was he needed, considering we had a list of defenders already and still no midfield?
It was more or less known they were gonna leave.Do you think SAF got interested in Jones after he sold them ? I think he proceeds with far more caution and anticipation
So can't Fergie have an idea of who is going to leave in the summer and who he is going to bring in?! Just because you can't see any space now doesn't mean one might appear.
I agree, all I said was "IMHO" and the same time I think Hazard will be too expensive and if other clubs (City,Chelsea) are interested, it'll be close to impossible
That's cool but your just not looking at it logically. If we are willing to as reported splash £25m on Gaitan, i don't see why we wouldn't on hazard. Yes other clubs might be interested but they always are. I can't remember the last time in the recent 3 years Chelsea have outbid us for a player, they don't shop in that tax bracket anymore and City are City but at the end of the day unless they are going to double the wages we will offer there isn't much else they can offer as an advantage. Our chances of getting him will purely depend on what league he wants to play in.
You're the one who's telling me I'm not looking at it logically whereas you're basing yourself on something "reported".
Hazard is a better player, will cost more and will interest more clubs than Gaitan and so far nothing proves that United are interested in the Argentinian.You cannot use speculation as some sort of logic
Hazard is a better player, will cost more and will interest more clubs than Gaitan and so far nothing proves that United are interested in the Argentinian.You cannot use speculation as some sort of logic
But yet you can use 'we don't have space for him' as your logic... Then not back it up and change your mind to 'o well' if Chelsea and City are interested we wont get him anyway..
Okay!!
He's not the player we actually need, but if we can get a player who has the ability, to potentially be as good for us as Ronaldo was, we should at least try and get him.
Unlike Gaitan and Sanchez last year, where there are question marks as to how well these players would fit into the Premier League, Eden Hazard looks like a sure thing. I'm actually amazed that the price being quoted is that low.
Unlike Gaitan and Sanchez last year, where there are question marks as to how well these players would fit into the Premier League, Eden Hazard looks like a sure thing. I'm actually amazed that the price being quoted is that low.
Correct me if im wrong but the hazard boy can actually play in CM cant he?
He's a tricky wide player with vision who doesn't defend very well. That to me doesn't make a good CM. You could play him behind the striker to give him a bit more freedom but that's as close as you'll get to it, that'll still be an attacking role rather than a midfield role though.
Well Scholes was a former striker who was moved in CM despite having no defensive discipline at all (and no idea of how tackling should be made). He did well didn't he? Giggs was a former winger who dazzled us for years with his technique and pace. He did well in CM too. If a player got talent and a great attitude then he can adapt.
Hazard is no CM yet but do we really need that? In my opinion 4-4-2 is dead and buried at least in terms of Europe. Many teams play with a 3 CM men formation which would make Hazard a great addition to the team. The fact that he can also play on the flank is a bonus.
You asked whether he was a CM already not whether he could be moulded into one. I'm sure he could in the same way Rooney could. In fact what we're playing now is much closer to a 433 than it would be if Hazard was playing, I believe, because Rooney is better helping out with the midfield duties. It's bizarre that now we're playing 442 simply because Rooney's a 'striker', but if we brought Hazard to play the exact same role it would magically turn into a 433. Rooney's spent most of the last 18 months floating about in the same positions Silva has through the middle yet they're seen as playing fundamentally different roles.
Put simply, I don't think signing Hazard would help us play 433. It would just make us better.
Put simply, I don't think signing Hazard would help us play 433. It would just make us better.
If we insist on playing Rooney behind another striker, then having an inside forward playmaker on wing would be very helpful.....having 3 pure classical wingers does hold us back at times when in need of a possession game.
We'd still play 4231 of course, but he could play in any of those 3 positions behind the striker, which Rooney could then move into as you'd now have a player capable of replacing him in the middle of that line. Same deal with Gotze.
We'd still play 4231 of course, but he could play in any of those 3 positions behind the striker, which Rooney could then move into as you'd now have a player capable of replacing him in the middle of that line. Same deal with Gotze.
Rooney does float about so in that sense it's similar to Silva but his role is quite different to Silva's in the positions he's supposed to take up when we attack. Rooney still finds himself in and around the box a heck of a lot so it's not really the same as Silva who's almost whole emphasis of play is on creating and running the game. Rooney does a bit of that and a lot of the things that a genuine striker would do.
I'm sure "fundamentally different roles" covered that tbh -_-
I ain't the done who wants to use any kinda logic Einstein, you're the one who started it and I'm not saying we don't have space for him.When I say he isn't needed I basically mean that there are other areas which are more of a source of concern to us than buying another attacking winger/midfielder.
My point is that they're seen as fundamentally different because they are in fact quite different. I think Brwnd was suggesting that in reality they aren't whereas Rooney is still to a large extent still a striker for me. Just with license (and often responsibility) to drop deep and roam.
We are losing Berbatov and Park is likely to no longer be a winger. There is plenty of room for him to be needed.
You should have read my last post Chief
I'm with Brwned on this.
We need CMs who can play in a 2man midfield pairing. The likes of Sneijder and Hazard could do that for us imo.
We need CMs who can play in a 2man midfield pairing. The likes of Sneijder and Hazard could do that for us imo.
Why should it be about a player we *need* all the time?
SAF has never had problems going for players he feels can become absolute superstars, despite not being exactly what we need. If he thinks he's that good (and he is that good) I see no reason why he wouldn't go for them.
We needed a midfielder more than Jones and Young this Summer, but SAF saw the talent in them both and bought them anyway.
SAF has never had problems going for players he feels can become absolute superstars, despite not being exactly what we need. If he thinks he's that good (and he is that good) I see no reason why he wouldn't go for them.
We needed a midfielder more than Jones and Young this Summer, but SAF saw the talent in them both and bought them anyway.
Exactly.
Fergie said Rooney wasn't originally in his plans, but his hand was forced by other clubs. Same with Jones. Fergie makes exceptions for special talents, I think Hazard is one of them.
Yep. It's the youth factor too, despite Jones and Rooney not necessarily being needed at the time of their purchase, the fact that they are so young means that at a certain point, we will need them in the future and eventually they'll become completely integral to our team (which Rooney obviously is now). SAF has a much better record when it comes to signing youth than already established players, I'm sure he knows that himself.
If you gave me the choice between getting Sneijder last Summer, or waiting to get Hazard this Summer, I'd pick the latter any day of the week.
Saying that, I'd be torn about actually signing him if it prevented us from being able to sign a midfielder we need too. Catch 22 I guess.
That's why I hope we go for Martinez too, who's just as special in his position
I thought Fergie was watching Debouchy and not Hazard? If that is the case then there is not, and never has been any hint of interest from us in Hazard. With Hazard it's always about other English teams. I'm surprised so many a getting their hopes up over him.
If United are truly interested, how far do you guys see the club go in terms of transfer fee ?
Indeed. It can be argued that we didnt need Ozil, Sanchez etc when we tried to get them. Its another thing we failed to get them.
Probably not as much as City and Chelsea, sadly.
Well we've also sealed the signing of Clyne according to some. It would be strange if we're interested in Debouchy.
I think we're interested in him.
Well we were interested in signing Sanchez for 35m according to Bob Cass, Fergie's mate in the media and gets everything spot on.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...beat-35m-Sanchez--Sneijder-Modric-sights.html
£30m id see us going up to, if we were serisously interested in a talent.
We would never pay a ridiculous fee for a player, like £40m imo.
Possibly, but i am convinced that SAF must realise that he cannot continue to play a 2 man midfield against teams playing 3 who are very comfortable in possession.
Currently we do not seem to have the right type of players for an effective 3 man mid, and when we do employ one, we seem to lose more than we gain. This is why i believe SAF persists with 2 in the middle, simply because we offer greater threat offensively when we play with 2 strikers as opposed to an extra midfielder.
A 4-2-3-1 would seem to suit us better at present, but only with a more predominantly defensive player next to Carrick, possibly Jones being currently our best option. That would allow for a more stable base in midfield without losing too much offensively imo.
Sneijder was 35m too wasn't he? It was the wages that stopped us in the end, not the fee itself.
That's our biggest detterant when we sign players right now, I would think. Pay a player 150k-200k a week on a 5 year contract (which seems to be the norm now, sadly), you're potentially looking at 50m over the 5 years. Crazy really.
- Status