Transfer Tweets - Summer 2017 | Keep it on topic

I'd say 'Us against the world ' has been a big part of our history in the last 30 years. With success we have been a very hated club. With our commercial growth even more so. Nothing wrong with it.

Don't mince. Us against the world mentality posing as the best with an authoritarian club tone is different from Mourinho's victim toned dito.
 
So 48 hours?
The same as "Morata to Utd in 48 hours".
Or my favourite, "Perisic to Utd in 48 hours".
These guys know nothing and make things up as they go along. The problem is that nobody calls them out on the BS, after the 48 hour deadlines pass.
Then why bother reading this thread?
 
Spot on there. You got to trust Jose and his plan on how he wants to go about games but if we are talking about paying over the odds, Fellaini is an odd one. Flat track bully nothing more

Anything but actually. His best games for us came against either top opposition or big stake matches.
 
£10m for Fellaini would be a good buy for Gala. He is much maligned by United fans, but even championship clubs are paying more than £10-15m for players now, and Fellaini is very much a top-half Premier League level player.
Fellaini for £10M is excellent value imo.
 
FFP is stupid anyway.

No club should be told how much they can and can't spend.

You can't be serious. Not only it is there to prevent the build-up of unsustainable debt mainly through reckless spending, it adds guard rails to maintain a competitive balance throughout the sport, as not every club can be bankrolled with trillions of family fortune.
 
FFP is stupid anyway.

No club should be told how much they can and can't spend.
So you'd be happy if Jeff Bezos got bored running Amazon, came in and bought Liverpool then proceeded to spend £2billion in one transfer window? Then again in the next window if they weren't top of the league?
 
FFP is stupid anyway.

No club should be told how much they can and can't spend.

Can't bring myself to accept this. If a club can drag themselves up and earn what they have, that's great. If they get some help then that's ok if it keeps things competitive, but if one or two clubs are just handed near limitless funds then it just ruins the fun and true competitive nature of the sport for me.

I mean, you could do that in any sport and I'd feel the same way. Where is the point of a sport if it becomes influenced to a major extent by billionaires who want to play their own games? I genuinely don't really count Man City's title wins as being title wins for them. I consider it to be Mansour wins because he could have literally taken any soulless club and done exactly the same thing. They ceased being Man City after they'd changed basically everything about the club and personnel.
 
So you'd be happy if Jeff Bezos got bored running Amazon, came in and bought Liverpool then proceeded to spend £2billion in one transfer window? Then again in the next window if they weren't top of the league?
If there were some ways to ensure he'd have to use his personal income/properties as securities against liverpool's debt, sure. Why not.
 
Tight purse strings five, six years ago allowed a two decade foundation of success to nearly collapse when the man holding it together retired.

We've gone through two managers that did anything but restore us to glory. And third time around you've got a manager that attracts talent, achieved immediate success in his first season and has always made it clear he needs more. If you ignored the last five years you can claim we don't need more or better players. If you're fine with becoming a Liverpool or Leeds then you can turn a blind eye. But if your business is predicated on clubs long term sporting success you're a fool to do so.

As an aside, awful way to think , bringing up Gudetti's missed goal. (Football) History is made of missed and made chances. If you switched it around, even just single goals you'd be rewriting history and Champions and records of all sorts. Utter nonsense.
Before you reply maybe you should understand the context I was replying too. Did I say that we should not spend? I was only referring to the point that the owners might be a bit cautious not tight with the money. Goodness me.
 
If there were some ways to ensure he'd have to use his personal income/properties as securities against liverpool's debt, sure. Why not.
He's so rich he could pay the release clause for every Barcelona and real Madrid player. You think that'd be good for football do you?
 
He's so rich he could pay the release clause for every Barcelona and real Madrid player. You think that'd be good for football do you?
I don't care. If he has that money and is willing to spend it, good for him, and his club. I don't particularly care for competitive balance. It doesn't exist anyways and never did. And i'd watch every liverpool game if they put a team of modric-kroos-pogba-messi-neymar-cristiano on the pitch
 
He's so rich he could pay the release clause for every Barcelona and real Madrid player. You think that'd be good for football do you?

We're so rich we could buy every single West Ham player. Is that good for football?

The implication of your statement is that United should donate a portion of their revenue with poorer teams as that would be good for football.
 
I don't care. If he has that money and is willing to spend it, good for him, and his club. I don't particularly care for competitive balance. It doesn't exist anyways and never did. And i'd watch every liverpool game if they put a team of modric-kroos-pogba-messi-neymar-cristiano on the pitch
I don't think you'll be able to see much from inside a bin.
 
Bale is a great winger but he is going to be 70m+ surely? That and his record of injuries is a worry. Mahrez I would give you, other than the fact he really isnt a crossing winger is he? played on the right as a left footer so he could cut in and shoot. Dont think he has ever been a tradityional winger.

DM I am struggling I dont think Matic should be more than 30m.

Nah. Mahrez is a winger with goals, great dribbler
 
We're so rich we could buy every single West Ham player. Is that good for football?

The implication of your statement is that United should donate a portion of their revenue with poorer teams as that would be good for football.
But we couldn't buy every West ham player so the foundation of your argument is bollocks.
 
this is such a weird argument, if fellaini wasn't there its not like we would have played the games with 10 players.

all players contributed, doesn't mean we couldn't have done what we did with other players, especially better ones, and fellaini isn't exactly the best around. i'd argue he's actually an hindrance.

Of course all players contributed. Still, he scored some important goals for us in arguably the most important games of the season. He was excellent towards the final stages of the EL. Check his stats in the EL final.

Just because he is not Iniesta, Pirlo or Scholes doesn't mean he has to get all the hate, especially from our fans.
 
But we couldn't buy every West ham player so the foundation of your argument is bollocks.

Of course we could. We've spent £500m in 4 years and their best player of the last 10 years left for around £25m.

We could comfortably buy their entire team.
 
We're so rich we could buy every single West Ham player. Is that good for football?

The implication of your statement is that United should donate a portion of their revenue with poorer teams as that would be good for football.
That implication does not follow at all, although we kind of are already with the UK TV deal. We have states backing football teams and playing a game of international keeping up with the Jonses. This is way beyond some teams having a bit more cash than others.

Also, we really couldn't buy the whole West Ham team for a whole host of reasons.
 
Before you reply maybe you should understand the context I was replying too. Did I say that we should not spend? I was only referring to the point that the owners might be a bit cautious not tight with the money. Goodness me.

I think I appreciated what your reply was meant to be quite well. If i were in the room with the Glazers and one of them raised the same doubts you had, then this would be my reply. If it's a harsh tone that's because this truth should sting the owners. They miscalculated how quickly the money would flow into the sport w other teams in under investing before SAF retired. They screwed up monumentally hiring DM. Now They are on the cusp of making or breaking this business in the short term and need a shake up.

I say short term because we are fortunate to have become the most successful club in England during a golden period of globalization. It's allowed us to build a worldwide fanbase larger than the clubs I mentioned as warning. This will extend our period of grace but shouldn't be seen as an excuse to cut corners.