• Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here

Manchester United Thread

... they said they'd think about it... they didn't say that they'd sell immediately :roll:

You love to argue for the sake of it, miserable as always. Got nothing better to do with your time than being a pedantic analite. Still bitter about the homegrown/foriegn player debate where you made of fool of yourself?

i mean can u blame them for keeping him? u guys are practically salivating at his name... suck it up, at this point its either u shell out Beckham numbers or try to punch it through in the summer... have fun :)

If a player wants to leave and is coming out in the press all time saying he prefers to play else where and a club come in and put in a very good offer then they should let him go in my opinion. Bayern are behaving as if he is their most important player that they have every had, when clearly he is not.
Matherto is right, the article is mistaken, Bayern are considering the offer and are holding a board meeting over the weekend.

What I dont get is why people keep moaning about how much we pay for players, at the end of the day the manager identifies players he wants and we go for them. If he wants Hargreaves then what does it matter how much we pay to get him?
If OH ticks all the boxes that SAF is looking for, then unless there are other CMs out there who are potentially available now and also tick all the right boxes then its inevitable a premium price will end up being paid. If SAF feels that Hargreaves is the perfect addition to the team and Bayern don't want to lose him then a higher fee is inevitable. We will also pay more because he just signed a long term contract, which some people on here seem to forget.

I personally dont care how much we pay for hargreaves, simply because he is just the player we need, once he steps onto the pitch or we are winning titles with him in the team, you forget about the price, Carrick being the perfect example of this. Its not every summer United fork out 20million on a player, its only if we are certain the player will fit right into the team and be a key integral player.
 
This Hargreaves saga is just going to rumble on and on. Bayern will be losing both Scholl and Deisler to retirement, Salihamidzic has reportedly agreed to join Juve and Ali Karimi is also on his way out. This will leave Bayern with only 4 recognised midfielders which is going to make it even more difficult for us to sign him.
I just wish now that we had gone through with the Senna deal which in turn would have given us more options in midfield especially in the 2nd half of the season when its gona get tougher.
 
You love to argue for the sake of it, miserable as always. Got nothing better to do with your time than being a pedantic analite. Still bitter about the homegrown/foriegn player debate where you made of fool of yourself?

um... atleast i argue ON TOPIC... christ... get off ur high horse... ur the special cookie that wants to bring up the past... this forum isn't what my life is about... unlike some joker that got banned and decided to register under another alias just so he could sleep at night cuz guys over on the liverpool thread rocked his arse...

What I dont get is why people keep moaning about how much we pay for players, at the end of the day the manager identifies players he wants and we go for them. If he wants Hargreaves then what does it matter how much we pay to get him?

every team gets criticism for making transfers with that much money involved... i don't see what makes this move any different... at the end of the day there's gonna be people that agree and people that disagree with the fee for the certain player... 20million is a seriously large sum... its more than what u lot paid for Van Nistelrooy and about the same for Rooney... do u guys seriously think Hargreaves will perform better than what Van Nistelrooy did for you? or perform as well as Rooney is supposed to do for you?
 
The thing is, if the player is good over a couple of seasons, that more than makes up for it. £30million for Rio still sounds like a joke. But considering how good he has been for us and for the amount of time that he has, people quickly forget about the price tag.
 
I suppose it's not a lot when you consider all the world class players we got for free over the last 10 years.
I still don't rate Hargreaves though.
 
The thing is, if the player is good over a couple of seasons, that more than makes up for it. £30million for Rio still sounds like a joke. But considering how good he has been for us and for the amount of time that he has, people quickly forget about the price tag.

i totally agree about Rio, and i'm not saying Hargreaves might not become something great for ManU... its just 20million is a big number to swallow... especially when u compare that number to what you were able to get in the recent past with that same amount...
 
um... atleast i argue ON TOPIC... christ... get off ur high horse... ur the special cookie that wants to bring up the past... this forum isn't what my life is about... unlike some joker that got banned and decided to register under another alias just so he could sleep at night cuz guys over on the liverpool thread rocked his arse...

You are highly mistaken if thats what you think. I had to come back otherwise those who control this part of the forum would think they can get away with abusing their power and banning folks for none other than petty issues which I won't go into here. It wasn't the first time it had happened and would have continued if nobody spoken up about the issue. Its nothing to do with 'not sleeping at night' or some guy 'rocked my arse'. Anyone with dignity or with some sense of justice in mind would have done the same, however I realise that might be difficult for someone like yourself to comprehend.

every team gets criticism for making transfers with that much money involved... i don't see what makes this move any different... at the end of the day there's gonna be people that agree and people that disagree with the fee for the certain player... 20million is a seriously large sum... its more than what u lot paid for Van Nistelrooy and about the same for Rooney... do u guys seriously think Hargreaves will perform better than what Van Nistelrooy did for you? or perform as well as Rooney is supposed to do for you?

Well firstly this is Manchester Utd we are talking about so clubs are going to try and get every penny they can from us being known as one of the richest clubs in the world. Secondly Its not some small time club we're dealing with where we can flash them a couple of million pounds, then they get excited and accept. Bayern are big club and genuinely don't need to sell him right now, plus they just signed the boy to a long term contract, so its going to take a big offer to prize the lad away. You cant compare him to RVN just because of the price tag(btw rooney cost more than 20mil, it was in the range of 27million) its ridiculous because they are not doing the same job, otherwise we all would compare players based on their price tag which is spasticated to say the least. However I feel he'll be a key part of the team, meaning he'll be vital in the position that he plays in i.e MIDFIELD for those slow readers.

I can understand some feel its a large sum but at the end of the day you pay the price, you take your chances it was the case with Rio(notice no one is still harping on about his price tag now, or being silly and asking if he is he puts in the same performance as rooney), it was the case with Wayne, it was the case with Carrick and its the case with Hargreaves. Some cretins cry out 'hes not worth 20mil' 'Hargreaves is only worth 12mil'. Fact is boys and girls, there is no such thing as a players monetry worth, just how much it costs to prise that player away from his current club, other than that, it is a meaningless figure that has no bearing on a players ability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i totally agree about Rio, and i'm not saying Hargreaves might not become something great for ManU... its just 20million is a big number to swallow... especially when u compare that number to what you were able to get in the recent past with that same amount...
Think about what we were able to get with £30million before the Rio signing. The standard of prices rise every season and Rio's £30million sounds crazy even today, imagine what £30million meant back then. Yet no one cares cuz Rio delivers the goods.
Carrick's price tag was inflated but he's settling in very nicely alongside Scholes, which is something we havent seen since Keano left.
We're not paying big money for world class players, we're paying big money for world class replacements and players who fit in. Theres a difference. A world class signing would be something like Veron or would have been something like Ballack. They arguably would have been big signings for the sake of it which is basically what Chelsea do (eg. Shevchenko). As an individual, Carrick is inferior to guys like Ballack, Nedved, Vieira and other well known midfielders. But Carrick does exactly what we need. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now look at it from a tactical point of view. If we got Hargreaves, a 3 man midfield of Scholes, Hargreaves and Carrick would be VERY strong for both attacking and defending. It would basically be the kind of partnership that Gerrard and Lampard were supposed to be for England except this one would work cuz all 3 players are very different.
 
You are highly mistaken if thats what you think. I had to come back otherwise those who control this part of the forum would think they can get away with abusing their power and banning folks for none other than petty issues which I won't go into here. It wasn't the first time it had happened and would have continued if nobody spoken up about the issue. Its nothing to do with 'not sleeping at night' or some guy 'rocked my arse'. Anyone with dignity or with some sense of justice in mind would have done the same, however I realise that might be difficult for someone like yourself to comprehend.

ROFLCOPTER... i love this... i've finally figured you out mate... all i have to do is reverse this shit on you and you'll run in ur corner and defend urself... k hats off to your dignity if that's what you want to call it... but everyone else on the board knows exactly what it is... u can keep arguing this i'm through with it...

Some cretins cry out 'hes not worth 20mil' 'Hargreaves is only worth 12mil'. Fact is boys and girls, there is no such thing as a players monetry worth, just how much it costs to prise that player away from his current club, other than that, it is a meaningless figure that has no bearing on a players ability.

you understand how stupid that sounds right? its like saying if Fergie really wanted someone like Crouch and he was willing to throw 50million at Liverpool, you would stand by his decision... after all monetry worth has no bearing at all what so ever on a players ability...

by a show of hands ladies and gents... how many people would pay 50million for Crouch?

RuneEdge said:
Think about what we were able to get with £30million before the Rio signing. The standard of prices rise every season and Rio's £30million sounds crazy even today, imagine what £30million meant back then. Yet no one cares cuz Rio delivers the goods.
Carrick's price tag was inflated but he's settling in very nicely alongside Scholes, which is something we havent seen since Keano left.
We're not paying big money for world class players, we're paying big money for world class replacements and players who fit in. Theres a difference. A world class signing would be something like Veron or would have been something like Ballack. They arguably would have been big signings for the sake of it which is basically what Chelsea do (eg. Shevchenko). As an individual, Carrick is inferior to guys like Ballack, Nedved, Vieira and other well known midfielders. But Carrick does exactly what we need. Nothing more, nothing less.

that doesn't sound weird to you though? you give big money to role players? guys that just do their jobs... nothing big, just guys that will play their roles with decent to good results... i'm sure you guys can get someone just about equal to what Hargreaves would do for you in the summer for almost half that amount... i guess i just don't see the urgency in ManU's need to sign him as of now... considering you do have an operating midfield and are still atop of the table...

RuneEdge said:
Now look at it from a tactical point of view. If we got Hargreaves, a 3 man midfield of Scholes, Hargreaves and Carrick would be VERY strong for both attacking and defending. It would basically be the kind of partnership that Gerrard and Lampard were supposed to be for England except this one would work cuz all 3 players are very different.

those are all assumptions... of what Hargreaves could bring to you lot... that's the argument in the first place... are these assumptions worth 20million...
 
you understand how stupid that sounds right? its like saying if Fergie really wanted someone like Crouch and he was willing to throw 50million at Liverpool, you would stand by his decision... after all monetry worth has no bearing at all what so ever on a players ability...

by a show of hands ladies and gents... how many people would pay 50million for Crouch?

If Sir Alex wanted to pay £50million for Crouch, it must obviously mean he thinks its worth it. And more often than not, Sir Alex is right so yeah, of course we would stand by his decision. You're only making it sound dumb by giving an example that's extremely unlikely.

that doesn't sound weird to you though? you give big money to role players? guys that just do their jobs... nothing big, just guys that will play their roles with decent to good results... i'm sure you guys can get someone just about equal to what Hargreaves would do for you in the summer for almost half that amount... i guess i just don't see the urgency in ManU's need to sign him as of now... considering you do have an operating midfield and are still atop of the table...
When did I say anything about role players? :roll: Is Carrick a role player? No, he's a first teamer so of course he does something big. My point is, in Carrick we found a player who does exactly what we need. Players like Veron and Ballack do so much more overall but dont really specialise or focus all their ability in the area we're trying to improve, which in this case is intercepting, and finding our attacking players from deep positions, etc. Ballack can also do those things but because he could also do so much more, stuff like intercepting is a smaller part of his game compared to Carrick's. Which is why Ballack is always getting forward for Chelsea and Carrick isnt. Thats not something I want to see in our team cuz Scholes already does that. So a player who does nothing more than we need would be worth every penny. If Hargreaves is that player then great. Just cuz he cant do party tricks or score wonder goals, it doesnt meant he cant justify a £20million price tag.

those are all assumptions... of what Hargreaves could bring to you lot... that's the argument in the first place... are these assumptions worth 20million...
Thats such a retarded arguement. Its like saying its all assumptions worth £1million if you bought a player like Ronaldinho for that amount. Of course they are assumptions, assumptions based on what we've seen of the player in question. Thats how ALL transfers are done.
 
Last edited:
If Sir Alex wanted to pay £50million for Crouch, it must obviously mean he thinks its worth it. And more often than not, Sir Alex is right so yeah, of course we would stand by his decision. You're only making it sound dumb by giving an example that's extremely unlikely.

it doesnt' sound dumb... because obviously u find it something that's extremely unlikely... that means there IS some sort of fine line between what players are worth 50million and what players aren't...

When did I say anything about role players? :roll: Is Carrick a role player? No, he's a first teamer so of course he does something big. My point is, in Carrick we found a player who does exactly what we need. Players like Veron and Ballack do so much more overall but dont really specialise or focus all their ability in the area we're trying to improve, which in this case is intercepting, and finding our attacking players from deep positions, etc. Ballack can also do those things but because he could also do so much more, stuff like intercepting is a smaller part of his game compared to Carrick's. Which is why Ballack is always getting forward for Chelsea and Carrick isnt. Thats not something I want to see in our team cuz Scholes already does that. So a player who does nothing more than we need would be worth every penny. If Hargreaves is that player then great. Just cuz he cant do party tricks or score wonder goals, it doesnt meant he cant justify a £20million price tag.

just because ur labled as a role player doesn't mean you don't get first team action... what u described, which i highlighted in bold IS a role player... granted he might be a world class role player... if ur comfortable in paying 20million for a role player that's fine with me... its not my team... i just find it different... almost desperate...

Thats such a retarded arguement. Its like saying its all assumptions worth £1million if you bought a player like Ronaldinho for that amount. Of course they are assumptions, assumptions based on what we've seen of the player in question. Thats how ALL transfers are done.

ok... lemme ask you... would u rather be wrong about a transfer worth 20million? or wrong about a transfer worth 1million? say you did buy Crouch for 50million and flops... and you also bought Ronaldinho for 1million and he flops too... would u be getting criticism for screwing up on the Crouch deal or the Ronaldinho deal?

here's another question... would u rather sign Ronaldinho for 20million or Hargreaves for 20million? which is a bigger risk factor?
 
ROFLCOPTER... i love this... i've finally figured you out mate... all i have to do is reverse this shit on you and you'll run in ur corner and defend urself... k hats off to your dignity if that's what you want to call it... but everyone else on the board knows exactly what it is... u can keep arguing this i'm through with it...

First you need to figure out how to construct a sentence with proper grammar and punctuation. Then you can rewrite that almost certainly rubbish point and make it intelligible next time.

you understand how stupid that sounds right? its like saying if Fergie really wanted someone like Crouch and he was willing to throw 50million at Liverpool, you would stand by his decision... after all monetry worth has no bearing at all what so ever on a players ability...

by a show of hands ladies and gents... how many people would pay 50million for Crouch?

Slow arent we!? I strongly suggest you stick to baseball and munching on those hotdogs because you know nothing about football or how it works. Read my sentence again and this time S-L-O-W.L-Y and you will see I never mentioned that player is worth an unlimited amount of money. The money paid for the player has no baring on his football ability, meaning its on how much a club demands from a club and if they are willing to meet those demands. Its foolish to try predict how much a player is worth as its all relative due to different circumstances. Obviously the board will have their own budget of how much they are willing to spend on player and will not go over that. Again its spastic to suggest we would go in for crouch for 50million because he is not someone we want or need. If players ability came in the equation when paying set prices to a players worth as thats how you think it works, a certain amount of goals would add value to his fee every year on his contract which we all know does not happen.

The club have thier own valuation of their player and its up to the other club if they are willing to pay that amount. Sir Alex has his value for each transfer target and doesn't go over it, if we're offering 20 million for Hargreaves then Sir Alex obviously values him as a 20 million pound player same as he valued Carrick as an 18 million pound player. The past has proved that we dont go over Sir Alex's valuation of players But you can never say that player is worth 20million because he scored this amount of goals or made x amount of assists, that player cost 10million and he cost 5million because it all changes due to different circumstances.
 
it doesnt' sound dumb... because obviously u find it something that's extremely unlikely... that means there IS some sort of fine line between what players are worth 50million and what players aren't...
WTF is your point?
You simply asked if we would stand by Sir Alex if he wanted to buy Crouch for £50million. And the answer is yes cuz we trust his judgement. No need to drag this any further to the point where you're arguing for the sake of it. :roll:

just because ur labled as a role player doesn't mean you don't get first team action... what u described, which i highlighted in bold IS a role player... granted he might be a world class role player... if ur comfortable in paying 20million for a role player that's fine with me... its not my team... i just find it different... almost desperate...
If you pay £20million for a player who does nothing more than his role, and that player helps to achieve goals by doing his part, how the hell is that desperate? Thats just a transfer that was justified. £20million isnt crazy money when the player is arguably worth around £15million.

ok... lemme ask you... would u rather be wrong about a transfer worth 20million? or wrong about a transfer worth 1million? say you did buy Crouch for 50million and flops... and you also bought Ronaldinho for 1million and he flops too... would u be getting criticism for screwing up on the Crouch deal or the Ronaldinho deal?
Thats just the same as asking would you rather have a £50million signing justified or a £1million signing. And the answer is obviously the £50million player cuz you'd have to be rewarded more for that signing to be proven right.

here's another question... would u rather sign Ronaldinho for 20million or Hargreaves for 20million? which is a bigger risk factor?
WTF does this even have to do with anything?
 
tomorrow is going to be in the tough game . I think that the final school with the two don't see no two losses or know what I'm saying his home use by my speech recognition so mentions the united are going to movies also known of the best team in the world for single all seen the shaman should challenge at a shaman she now she has shown that CNN chamber in UK salmon UK salmon on the floor of OK I am out of the U.S. is not making cents.the.com I don't like these cases of each .com.com people what the viola Da Da BU U. P.
 
tomorrow is going to be in the tough game . I think that the final school with the two don't see no two losses or know what I'm saying his home use by my speech recognition so mentions the united are going to movies also known of the best team in the world for single all seen the shaman should challenge at a shaman she now she has shown that CNN chamber in UK salmon UK salmon on the floor of OK I am out of the U.S. is not making cents.the.com I don't like these cases of each .com.com people what the viola Da Da BU U. P.

Fancy translating that ? ;)

Part one of the perfect weekend is done, now for part 2.........
 
tomorrow is going to be in the tough game . I think that the final school with the two don't see no two losses or know what I'm saying his home use by my speech recognition so mentions the united are going to movies also known of the best team in the world for single all seen the shaman should challenge at a shaman she now she has shown that CNN chamber in UK salmon UK salmon on the floor of OK I am out of the U.S. is not making cents.the.com I don't like these cases of each .com.com people what the viola Da Da BU U. P.

Did you go to the same school as chai by any chance?
 
You lot are slagging Chai off for his views the same way you complained about the Liverpool and Arsenal fans objecting to yours.
 
Tonight would be a cracking game.I'm sure our players can wait to get on the field.A win would stretch the gap to 9 points,a draw would make it 7 points and a loss would galvanise every other team challenging us for the title.C'Mon United!!!
 
WTF is your point?
You simply asked if we would stand by Sir Alex if he wanted to buy Crouch for £50million. And the answer is yes cuz we trust his judgement. No need to drag this any further to the point where you're arguing for the sake of it. :roll:


If you pay £20million for a player who does nothing more than his role, and that player helps to achieve goals by doing his part, how the hell is that desperate? Thats just a transfer that was justified. £20million isnt crazy money when the player is arguably worth around £15million.


Thats just the same as asking would you rather have a £50million signing justified or a £1million signing. And the answer is obviously the £50million player cuz you'd have to be rewarded more for that signing to be proven right.


WTF does this even have to do with anything?

i'll just answer both u and Alucard's post at once...

my point was that there IS a limit to how much a team is willing to pay for certain players based on what they will bring to the team which is, what Alucard would say as a player's football ability... obviously from your statements you find signing Crouch for 50million is, as you put it... an extremely unlikely, situation... why? why would it be an extremely unlikely situation? because you lot don't value his football ability as proven by Alucard's statement of "he is not someone we want or need", in which case the cost of his transfer DOES relate to a player's football ability... as also proven by my previous question of Ronaldinho or Hargreaves...

now read ur own statement over about how you think Hargreaves is worth 15million... why would you come up with a number like 15million? was it based on the player's ability? or was it because that's how much u feel like handing out to Bayern like Alucard suggests? because obviously you're not getting Hargreaves with 15million...

my whole point is that these transfer fees ARE relative to a player's football ability... i understand that the transfer fees are used just to pry the players away from their respective clubs, but why choose a number like 20million? if Bayern really wanted to just gouge ManU in terms of transfer fees why not make ManU pay 50million for Hargreaves? would you pay 50million for Hargreaves?

all i'm saying is to me, 20million is too much for a role player when you guys are already atop of the table... this will most likely be the most expensive signing before summer... what makes it seem desperate is because it's coming from the current points leader... you're not a team with large glaring holes to fill like Chelsea was with their keeper situation a little bit ago... why such an expensive move? is it really necessary? it seems like a hasty move considering Bayern seems to be suggesting that they are more willing to make the move during the summer...
 
Last edited:
FFS, couldnt you simply ask "Why pay £20million for an average player when you're already at the top of the league?".
The answer is because we need him. Lets be honest here. Part of the reason we're at the top of the league is because Chelsea have been shite compared to the last 2 seasons. If this was the Chelsea of last year, Hargreaves wouldnt sound like a stupid signing.
So why wait for Hargreaves? Are we waiting for Chelsea to start threatening us and push us to the point where we NEED Hargreaves? Why not fix the holes now rather than waiting for them to cause us problems?
 
my point was that there IS a limit to how much a team is willing to pay for certain players based on what they will bring to the team which is, what Alucard would say as a player's football ability... obviously from your statements you find signing Crouch for 50million is, as you put it... an extremely unlikely, situation... why? why would it be an extremely unlikely situation? because you lot don't value his football ability as proven by Alucard's statement of "he is not someone we want or need", in which case the cost of his transfer DOES relate to a player's football ability... as also proven by my previous question of Ronaldinho or Hargreaves...

You are getting confused here again. The reason I mentioned football ability is because for example 20million on a midfileder is not going to mean he is as good or going to put in the same performances as someone like Ronaldinho who would cost the same. Of course players ability,age and requirements is going to come into it when a club takes interest in a certain player. The point is how much it is going to take the get that player from the club which involves negotiations. If there was a fixed price based soley on a players ffootball ability on the pitch and how he is going to be compared to someone else who cost the same price, then there would not be any negotiations between the clubs of much they are willing to pay. You seem to think that a player who cost 20million must perform like every other player who cost the same amount, i.e your comparison to Hargreaves with Ronaldinho,RVN and Rooney.

now read ur own statement over about how you think Hargreaves is worth 15million... why would you come up with a number like 15million? was it based on the player's ability? or was it because that's how much u feel like handing out to Bayern like Alucard suggests? because obviously you're not getting Hargreaves with 15million...

How do you think bids are formulated? Do you think that the club wanting to buy the player looks at some imaginary stats then says he is worth x amount, then Bayern look at it and accept the bid? Its always going to change due to different circumstances and the fact is there is no true worth of a player, nobody knows how much a player will cost. Bayern Munich are a big club and only a big offer is going to tempt them to accept as they do not need or want to sell. That has nothing to do with Hargreaves ability on the pitch but rather Bayerns valuation of the player and how far we United are willling to go to get that player. A couple of seasons back when his contract was running out we could of got him alot cheaper, does not mean he is a a average player ability wise because we would have spent less? No it means that because his contract was running out, Bayern would have needed to sell the player and at a reasonable price to attract buyers, otherwise he would leave on a free. Different circumstances, different prices.

my whole point is that these transfer fees ARE relative to a player's football ability... i understand that the transfer fees are used just to pry the players away from their respective clubs, but why choose a number like 20million? if Bayern really wanted to just gouge ManU in terms of transfer fees why not make ManU pay 50million for Hargreaves? would you pay 50million for Hargreaves?

The money paid for a player is not a true reflection of a players ability, is that so hard to understand? Bayern would not raise it to 50million because its a unrealistic figure and would simply inflate the transfer market.

If teams had to buy midfielders for 40-50million then I'm sure they would make us pay that amount because that would have been the standard price in the market. For example back in 1999-2003 players were going for silly money and most big clubs had to pay the same large sum for players. Mendieta from Velencia to Lazip 28million, Vieri Lazio to Inter 31million. CrespoParma -Lazio 36million. Figo to Barcelona-Real Madrid 37million. Man Utd had to pay Lazio 28million for Veron in that period, Rio went for 30million from leeds. If you look in this period of time, many midfielders who play for big clubs have gone for around 18-20million. Diarra Lyon to Real Madrid 18million, Essien to Chelsea-24million. You cannot tell me any of those plyers is worth those extortionate figures based on their football ability its just the amount a player cost to prise them away from their club and relates to the transfer market. If any of those players played for a smaller club maybe those prices would not come up so high and a player would cost 10million. If they are lower in price does not necessarily mean they are any less of a player than someone who cost double that

all i'm saying is to me, 20million is too much for a role player when you guys are already atop of the table... this will most likely be the most expensive signing before summer... what makes it seem desperate is because it's coming from the current points leader... you're not a team with large glaring holes to fill like Chelsea was with their keeper situation a little bit ago... why such an expensive move? is it really necessary? it seems like a hasty move considering Bayern seems to be suggesting that they are more willing to make the move during the summer...

Maybe we can wait till the summer maybe we cannot, but its better if we get him now just to make sure we are covered appropriately. If carrick or scholes gets injured we only have fletcher as a genuine cover for central midfielder. Anything can happen in a short space of time where a few injuries can hit us and the next thing you know we are having to play players out of position. Look at cheslea, no one predicted they would have a injury crisis and most people thought their team was well equipped, most pundits tipped them to win the title over the likes of United,arsenal and liverpool for their supposedly superior strength in depth in their squad. Another thing is we don't have a real defensive midfielder, Carrick can play there yes, but in my opinion he is more of central midfielder like scholes who gets forward and creates openings. 20million is alot of money but that is how much he is going to cost if we want him, its that simple. If we win titles and he plays well in his position, the price will be forgotten. Why are you so concerned about the price anyway?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tonight would be a cracking game.I'm sure our players can wait to get on the field.A win would stretch the gap to 9 points,a draw would make it 7 points and a loss would galvanise every other team challenging us for the title.C'Mon United!!!

I would love it if when we win, Fergie walks onto the pitch and goes over and applauds the away fans as if to signal that the title is all wrapped up like he did at highbury in 2003 when won 2-3. It would be classic stuff and strike a huge psychological blow to those chelsea scum watching.
 
Alucard is the most refreshing member there has been around here for years. Intelligence, articulated arguments and well-thought out judgements . . . and not a fucking LOL or ROFLMAOEUU!!!111 in sight . . .
 
Back
Top Bottom