egafd.com

Now you are just being silly.

Just read my earlier reply to your post where I agree with much of what you say.



Maybe neither of us know fuck all about football !wink!

Thanks for pointing that out James. I was wrong. They got pipped on goal difference.

David Johnson wrote:


> In terms of spending, I don't think the comments you make about
> the money available from the Glazers stacks up. Despite having
> lost considerable expertise in the transfer market as a result
> of GIll going, Man Utd still managed to spend almost ?70
> million on Fellaini and Mata alone this season. Apparently
> additional offers for a range of players including Baines were
> turned down.
>


Moyes made a bid of ?28m for Fellaini AND Baines combined (which Everton rejected as "derisory and insulting" see http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23753129)

A few weeks later they came back with ?27.5m for Fellaini alone. That was ?4m MORE than they needed to spend had they put in the offer earlier. The chase for Fabregas was always doomed to fail, and I doubt Gill would have made such a mistake.

However claiming spending ?60m+ on two players as proof of their being money is not entirely accurate. There would have been a transfer kitty of some sort, no matter who the manager, which was bolstered by an extra payment of around ?30m for television rights over and above what had been expected as a result of the new Sky/BT rights sales. However, the ?67m United spent this season is the most they have spent (although I imagine, adjusted for inflation, the ?57m they spent in 01/02 season was the highest)

In the summer, United will have to contend with a drop in income due to no Champions League revenue (tripple whammy of no prize money, no TV money and no gate receipts), possible drop in season ticket sales, possible drop in sponsorship revenues (if any sponsors set performance targets as part of their contracts). If the new man gets ?90m I'll be surprised.

Why wasn't Ferguson able to strengthen his midfield? All those stories about buying Sneijder, Hazard, de Rossi and others. Man Utd did make enquiries, yet baulked at the prices/wages, all the while being held to ransom by players already at the club like Ferdinand and Rooney.

Not buying someone and making do with 40 year olds was preferable to losing a major player to another team. That was ALL down to money, or lack of it. (If Rooney was already on ?250,000 a week, a hike to ?300,000 was only an extra ?50,000... far less than the ?200,000 or so it would have taken to pay someone like Sneijder, for example... in a way, it was a cost-cutting exercise saving them ?150,000 a week)

When Ronaldo was sold for ?80m, United splashed out ?16m on Valencia and Michael Owen on a free as his "replacements" Look at United's spending in Ferguson's final few years... other than van Persie, no world class player (or even "almost" world class player) was signed. That's all to do with money.

For all the protestations, the Glazers have leveraged the club to the hilt and take out as much for themselves from sponsorship, ticket sales etc as they dare leaving little to re-invest in players.

In the summer, they will need an entire back four, a couple of midfielders and a striker (will van Persie stay beyond this season? I doubt it. Even if he does, his injury record will require more than Rooney and Wellbeck up front) That's going to cost far in excess of ?100m and I quite frankly can't see the Glazers spending that much even if van Gaal or Klopp is in charge.

There is talk of the club looking to put in bids for Roos, Lallana and Shaw. Based on what the newspapers have been saying, that's anywhere between ?75-90m without even addressing replacing Ferdinand and Vidic. Does anyone seriously think, based on the history of the Glazers so far, that the next manager will have the ?150m+ required to rebuild the team? While some money can be recouped from sales of players like Nani, Valencia etc., just as with the Ronaldo money, not all of it will go into the transfer kitty... loan interest repayments will come first.

Bob,

You are quite right in your analysis, which leads me to wonder if the Glazer family will seek to offload United sooner rather than later? They are only in it to see how much cash they can squeeze out of the asset, investing money into the club was never part of the business plan.

I wonder if the "wait and see" crowd have finally got the message, namely that the Glazers have taken them for mugs?

Bob Singleton wrote:


> Is Moyes a tactical genius? Absolutely not. But the blame for
> United's poor season shouldn't be left at his feet alone.
>
>


Of course the blame should lie with Moyes and Moyes alone. There is only ever one man responsible for results whether good or bad and that is the manager.

Moyes inherited a fantastic squad, but he himself wasn't upto the job. 11 years at Everton and won absolutely nothing, 11 years of failing as a manager and he gets the Utd job, it was always going to be a disaster and perhaps Fergie knew and wanted that so as he would be made to look even better.

Whilst teams above Utd had stability this season and kept with the same team selections except when changes were forced or needed, Moyes didn't seem to know his best side and never picked the same players two games running. Not only did he not know his best line up but he had this insane determination to play a cautious negative style where he foolishly thought the name of the game was possession.

He wasted 27m on Fellaini and paid over market value for Mata who can only play in one system, whilst refusing to play the quick and exciting Zaha because he happened to have got it on with Moyes's daughter and letting Anderson (one of the best midfielders in the world IMO) go to Italy. He had one of the best strikers around in Chicarito but wouldn't play him because he didn't have the workrate to fit in to his cautious possessional style.

Utd should've beaten Bayern easily, Bayern are a pretty average team as Real will show everyone, but the cautious Moyes opted to play Rooney in a defensive role (a player carrying a toe injury was given the most running to do, absurd!) and went with a team selection that had no balance and no pace. That was the moment that even the most loyal Moyes supporter woke up to the fact he was the wrong one rather than the chosen one, but if there was anyone still fighting his corner then they would've finally thrown in the towel after the Everton game, a game where Utd had nothing to lose and instead of going for it he stuck to the negative approach and even in defeat he couldn't see the obvious and thought his team (the one that didn't have a shot on target in the first half) had played well (the men in white coats should've been called at that point).

Giggs is ideal for the job, no-one knows the club, the players and the fans better than Giggs, and given the backing he'll go on to be a bigger success than Ferguson. Having spoken to a number of Utd fans, they are all behind Giggs, no-one wants a foreign manager and especially not the oap Van Gaal who has been desperately trying to land a job in England.

The sad thing is though, that there will quickly be another idiot willing to give Moyes a top job.

Bob Singleton wrote:
>
> Why wasn't Ferguson able to strengthen his midfield? All those
> stories about buying Sneijder, Hazard, de Rossi and others. Man
> Utd did make enquiries, yet baulked at the prices/wages, all
> the while being held to ransom by players already at the club
> like Ferdinand and Rooney.
>
> Not buying someone and making do with 40 year olds was
> preferable to losing a major player to another team. That was
> ALL down to money, or lack of it.
>
>

There was no need to strengthen the midfield. Also it doesn't always have to come down to money.

There was a lot of hope with players like Cleverly (Cleverly has been getting some unfair stick but he's a good player who has just found himself being asked to play the wrong style and who has been in and out of the team). Zaha was bought for 15m, a player with lots of potential. Anderson, Kagawa (an exceptional player in Germany who just hasn't been played in his preferred role very often), Carrick, Young, Nani, Valencia, Yanuzaj, Lingard etc. It wasn't exactly a poor midfield that Moyes inherited. Giggs may have been 40 but his performances were still top drawer, but his worth off the field was immense in helping to bring on the younger players, so it wasn't a case of making do with him.

Just seen on the news that following the sacking of Moyes, the police have been called to quell the mass protests outside Old Trafford.

Crowds of Liverpool, City and Chelsea fans have been all told to go home.

Milk Tray Man wrote:

> Just seen on the news that following the sacking of Moyes, the
> police have been called to quell the mass protests outside Old
> Trafford.
>
> Crowds of Liverpool, City and Chelsea fans have been all told
> to go home.

Reminds me of "Moyes has written an open letter to Manchester United fans which will be published in the London Evening Standard tonight"

[quote]I'm one of those, who in another thread, claimed the United squad weren't fit for purpose.[/quote]

That basic squad have won two out of the last 3 titles. They were 30 seconds away from winning 3 out of 3.

[quote]If the squad is so strong, David, why have media commentators and pundits been talking about having to spend ?100m, ?150m or even ?200m in the summer?[/quote]

Because most of the media were delighted a top team went for a British manager when the trends over the last decade or so is that Champions League qualifiers in England just don't trust British managers. They wanted David Moyes to do well because they themselves backed him and said it was the right appointment. Better to blame the players than admit their initial judgements were wrong.

One could of course turn a similar question back on to you. If the squad is so bad as you say, why did they win the league by 11 points last season?

[quote]Why have United supporters themselves suggested there was a need for wholesale changes as early as last summer?[/quote]

There weren't. Most Man Utd fans wanted a couple of midfielders who could win the ball and someone a bit more creative. Maybe cover for Vidic and Ferdinand who don't play every week. Hardly 'wholesale changes'.

[quote]Ask any Liverpool supporter which Man Utd players they'd like in their squad? Same of Man City and Chelsea supporters? The list of coveted payers will not be long.[/quote]

Because lots of fans see their own players through tinted glasses. Doesn't mean much. When Young was at Villa, Liverpool tried to buy him. The fans on forums wanted him. Not now because he's a Man Utd player. It takes someone really special from a rival before they admit they'd want that player.

[quote]While Moyes was never going to be another Ferguson, he was left with a poor squad of players.[/quote]

A squad of champions.

[quote]The Glazers have much to answer for... Maurice Watkins (one of the top lawyers in the north of England) was allowed to leave and replaced by a nobody. The Chief Executive, David Gill, was also allowed to leave at the same time as Ferguson. Sorry, but the Glazers should have said, one of you can retire this season, but the other will have to wait a while. No business can properly survive when so many at the pointy end of the management structure leave at the same time. You had a situation where both the football manager and the club's chief executive left at the same time! Stupid beyond belief. And why did all of this come about? Because the Glazers want to cut costs.[/quote]

Most fans will agree. Ferguson won't. And, despite what anyone thinks, under the Glazers Man Utd have won.......I dunno........6 titles, a Champions League, 2 or 3 League cups and a club world cup? They haven't invested the money Chelsea or City have and taken a lot out, but on the pitch things were going well......better than any other English team, actually. One could argue that throwing money at a team that were already winning things might rock the boat and then people would say they tinkered with the squad unnecessarily. Bit of the 'Monday morning quarterback' here.

[quote]Does anyone really think that if Klopp or van Gaal come in, they'll be given ?150m to spend? They never gave Ferguson that sort of money in the last few years when he most needed it. [/quote]

If they won't give it van Gaal, why would they give it Moyes? He's already spent ?65 million and the team have gradually got worse. I think they are more likely to trust van Gaal with ?150m than Moyes. Who would you choose if that ?150m was your money?

And they didn't fund Fergie because Fergie kept winning without that sort of investment.

[quote]Playing a 40 year old Giggs and bringing Scholes out of retirement where his answer to the midfield problems. "There's no value in the market" we kept hearing Ferguson say... yet Man City got Toure for a decent price, Chelsea got Mata for a decent price, Liverpool got Coutinho for a bargain price! The real reason was because "the Glazers won't give me any money"[/quote]

Fergie won titles without Toure, Mata and Coutinho. Thems the facts, Bob.

[quote]You also have to question Ferguson regarding why players like Paul Pogba were allowed to leave when the midfield was so sparse... he even admitted two years earlier that it would be stupid NOT to play him and allow him to leave on a free.[/quote]

That was puzzling but in the season Pogba went, Man Utd won the title. It was just a case of Pogba not being patient enough. He'd have played the season after. But this happens all the time.

[quote]Is Moyes a tactical genius? Absolutely not. But the blame for United's poor season shouldn't be left at his feet alone.[/quote]

Would you take him at Chelsea if Mourinho left?

No matter how you cut it, the bottom line is that Moyes took over a team that had come within a hairs breath of winning the last three Premier titles and romped away with last year's title. In addition, Moyes spent nearly ?70 million and had other offers turned down.

And the result was to take Man Utd to a whole series of firsts of the wrong kind. From title winners to mediocrity in the space of 10 months.

Of course he isn't responsible for every single thing that has gone wrong this season as I have already pointed out, but he is as sure as hell responsible for the great majority of it.