Crazy stuff going on at Man Utd with the Falcao loan.
Can't see how they're going to accommodate all three main forwards (not much chance of resting players with no Champs League).
I can see a 433, but that leaves a very attacking midfield or leaving Mata out.
I think my setup below looks about the best balanced team if all are fit.
[img]http://sharemytactics.com/22524/Man-Utd ... actics.png[/img]
However, there are rumours van Persie's knee needs an surgery. This means the Falcao move makes sense - and why it's only a loan move with the option to buy. If Man Utd don't know how long van Persie will be out for, nor how he's going to be at 30 years old after another knee operation then getting Falcao for the season is a great move..........especially as it keeps him out of the hands of a possible rival (City or Arsenal).
If it is indeed cover for RVP then van Gaal can keep to his 352. Still no room for Mata though:
[img]http://sharemytactics.com/22540/Man-Utd ... actics.png[/img]
What's going on at Man Utd then?
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
Robches wrote:
> By confining yourself to the last three seasons, you have
> missed out the sale of Ronaldo for ?80 million. During the last
> years of Alex Ferguson's reign, United's net spending was very
> low, as the Glazers struggled to fund the interest due on their
> debt. I am amazed that some people still seem to deny this
> basic fact.
OK here are the basic facts (net transfer spending since the Glazer takeover):
2005/06 - ?13m
2006/07 - ?4m
2007/08 - ?29m
2008/09 - ?34m
2009/10 - (?64m)
2010/11 - ?14m
2011/12 - ?40m
2012/13 - ?51m
2013/14 - ?67m
2014/15 - ?
> By confining yourself to the last three seasons, you have
> missed out the sale of Ronaldo for ?80 million. During the last
> years of Alex Ferguson's reign, United's net spending was very
> low, as the Glazers struggled to fund the interest due on their
> debt. I am amazed that some people still seem to deny this
> basic fact.
OK here are the basic facts (net transfer spending since the Glazer takeover):
2005/06 - ?13m
2006/07 - ?4m
2007/08 - ?29m
2008/09 - ?34m
2009/10 - (?64m)
2010/11 - ?14m
2011/12 - ?40m
2012/13 - ?51m
2013/14 - ?67m
2014/15 - ?
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
-
Arginald Valleywater
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
If the latest batch of signings don't bring back instant success I can't see how they will a)recoup the outlay and b) finance another tranch of signings in Jan and next summer if LVG's plans aren't working.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
Man Utd were after Vidal and decided against it given he was rushed back from a knee injury.
It's rumoured van Gaal wants Strootman (again, recovering from a knee injury). Both these players are valued 3 times that of Blind who's been brought in to cover the DM slot. Man Utd would have splashed out on Hummels too if Borussia Dortmund would have let him go.
I'm guessing Man Utd still have a bit of money to spend. It was rumoured Man Utd had ?200m and spent around ?160m. They've recouped about ?30m from selling Evra, Buttner, Kagawa, Bebe, Welbeck, and Lawrance So they've spent about ?130m net. That leaves ?70m if the rumoured kitty is true. And given they tried to get Hummels and Vidal over the summer, I'm guessing it is.
If they decide to buy Falcao, that will just leave them ?25m out of that ?70m, but they still haven't sold Nani (loan), Cleverley (loan), Hernandez (loan) and couldn't sell Fellaini due to him getting injured just as talks to sell him began. I also have a suspicion that Mata might be gone next summer unless they find a place for him in the system and he plays well. They can recoup a good ?30m without selling Mata imho. Aston Villa have an option to buy Cleverley in January for ?7.5m so they should get more for Fellaini, Nani and Hernandez.
It's rumoured van Gaal wants Strootman (again, recovering from a knee injury). Both these players are valued 3 times that of Blind who's been brought in to cover the DM slot. Man Utd would have splashed out on Hummels too if Borussia Dortmund would have let him go.
I'm guessing Man Utd still have a bit of money to spend. It was rumoured Man Utd had ?200m and spent around ?160m. They've recouped about ?30m from selling Evra, Buttner, Kagawa, Bebe, Welbeck, and Lawrance So they've spent about ?130m net. That leaves ?70m if the rumoured kitty is true. And given they tried to get Hummels and Vidal over the summer, I'm guessing it is.
If they decide to buy Falcao, that will just leave them ?25m out of that ?70m, but they still haven't sold Nani (loan), Cleverley (loan), Hernandez (loan) and couldn't sell Fellaini due to him getting injured just as talks to sell him began. I also have a suspicion that Mata might be gone next summer unless they find a place for him in the system and he plays well. They can recoup a good ?30m without selling Mata imho. Aston Villa have an option to buy Cleverley in January for ?7.5m so they should get more for Fellaini, Nani and Hernandez.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
Sam Slater wrote:
> Nonsense. The squad was winning things every season. You do not
> try and fix something that isn't broken.
>
> After a season with a manager out of his depth, no Champions
> League and 4 experienced players retiring or moving on, they're
> spending.
>
> ?150m so far spent, not including Falcao's loan and wages.
> Might be more to come before the night is over.
>
> It's as simple as that.
>
> Still waiting for your definition of a 'fool' re Man Utd
> owners/prospective buyers.
>
This is getting old. The Glazers simply could not afford to invest in the team, given the weight of the financial burden they had dumped on the club. Hence Utd's net transfer expenditure was almost zero. They relied on Alex Ferguson's managerial ability to keep the show on the road. With any lesser manager they would have been fucked. Any normal team needs to be refreshed periodically, this did not happen at Utd during the period in question.
Now that the wheels have come off, the Glazers have indeed thrown money at the team. Where they have managed to find it, they have not told me, but as I have said, I would be amazed if the lucrative endorsements do not come with break clauses. Multinational companies do not pay top dollar to sponsor teams in the middle of the PL, no matter how illustrious their history. Money talks, bullshit walks. If the Glazers are willing to spend ?150 million to safeguard contracts worth multiples of that, it makes sense to do it.
I have told you twice the stock market definition of a "greater fool", so kindly stop returning to it like a dog to its vomit.
> Nonsense. The squad was winning things every season. You do not
> try and fix something that isn't broken.
>
> After a season with a manager out of his depth, no Champions
> League and 4 experienced players retiring or moving on, they're
> spending.
>
> ?150m so far spent, not including Falcao's loan and wages.
> Might be more to come before the night is over.
>
> It's as simple as that.
>
> Still waiting for your definition of a 'fool' re Man Utd
> owners/prospective buyers.
>
This is getting old. The Glazers simply could not afford to invest in the team, given the weight of the financial burden they had dumped on the club. Hence Utd's net transfer expenditure was almost zero. They relied on Alex Ferguson's managerial ability to keep the show on the road. With any lesser manager they would have been fucked. Any normal team needs to be refreshed periodically, this did not happen at Utd during the period in question.
Now that the wheels have come off, the Glazers have indeed thrown money at the team. Where they have managed to find it, they have not told me, but as I have said, I would be amazed if the lucrative endorsements do not come with break clauses. Multinational companies do not pay top dollar to sponsor teams in the middle of the PL, no matter how illustrious their history. Money talks, bullshit walks. If the Glazers are willing to spend ?150 million to safeguard contracts worth multiples of that, it makes sense to do it.
I have told you twice the stock market definition of a "greater fool", so kindly stop returning to it like a dog to its vomit.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
[quote]This is getting old. The Glazers simply could not afford to invest in the team, given the weight of the financial burden they had dumped on the club. Hence Utd's net transfer expenditure was almost zero.[/quote]
James has shown you that when they wanted a player and he became available, they bought him. RVP, Young, Jones, De Gea, Smalling, Hernandez, Zaha, Fellaini and Mata were all bought before this last window, and all within the last 5 years (there are probably more).
[quote]They relied on Alex Ferguson's managerial ability to keep the show on the road.[/quote]
That's a manager's job, to be fair and applies to every manager of every club. Unless you know of owners who employ managers to drive the show off the road and into the nearest ditch purposely. The fact Ferguson was excellent at it doesn't back up your point.
[quote]Any normal team needs to be refreshed periodically, this did not happen at Utd during the period in question.[/quote]
They did try and refresh, I just think a lot of signings were of young players that haven't developed enough to challenge the 1st team players. Nani, Anderson, (Giggs and Scholes replacements), Smalling and Jones (Ferdinand and Vidic replacements) are good examples. Smalling and Jones still have time, given most defenders don't come into their prime until their mid-to-late 20s.
[quote]Now that the wheels have come off, the Glazers have indeed thrown money at the team. Where they have managed to find it, they have not told me, but as I have said, I would be amazed if the lucrative endorsements do not come with break clauses.[/quote]
Yes........they've spent big this summer, so that kind of goes against your theory that they're pink lint. And, yes, there are some clauses with Adidas at least that means they don't pay so much if there is no Champions League football if I recall correctly.
[quote]If the Glazers are willing to spend ?150 million to safeguard contracts worth multiples of that, it makes sense to do it.[/quote]
Exactly. It never made sense before. They had a winning team, spent on young players and hoped they'd develop fast enough to take over aging players. It was a strategy. It doesn't mean they were struggling to find the money, as this summer's spending shows.
[quote]I have told you twice the stock market definition of a "greater fool", so kindly stop returning to it like a dog to its vomit.[/quote]
Not really. I mean, you say it's a term used in stock marketing but you've not really explained it so it makes sense. I mean, I could call you a cunt now, and tell you it's a term used in Cornish tin mining 300 years ago and it means you're a super great guy, but if I didn't explain it further than that you'd probably not believe me. Right?
So let's put this to bed right now. The common parlance type of 'fool' or the stock marketing type of 'fool', it doesn't matter.....if the Glazers are fools for owning Man Utd, tell me which other Premier League club owners are 'fools' and which are not and try and explain your answers. Cheers.
James has shown you that when they wanted a player and he became available, they bought him. RVP, Young, Jones, De Gea, Smalling, Hernandez, Zaha, Fellaini and Mata were all bought before this last window, and all within the last 5 years (there are probably more).
[quote]They relied on Alex Ferguson's managerial ability to keep the show on the road.[/quote]
That's a manager's job, to be fair and applies to every manager of every club. Unless you know of owners who employ managers to drive the show off the road and into the nearest ditch purposely. The fact Ferguson was excellent at it doesn't back up your point.
[quote]Any normal team needs to be refreshed periodically, this did not happen at Utd during the period in question.[/quote]
They did try and refresh, I just think a lot of signings were of young players that haven't developed enough to challenge the 1st team players. Nani, Anderson, (Giggs and Scholes replacements), Smalling and Jones (Ferdinand and Vidic replacements) are good examples. Smalling and Jones still have time, given most defenders don't come into their prime until their mid-to-late 20s.
[quote]Now that the wheels have come off, the Glazers have indeed thrown money at the team. Where they have managed to find it, they have not told me, but as I have said, I would be amazed if the lucrative endorsements do not come with break clauses.[/quote]
Yes........they've spent big this summer, so that kind of goes against your theory that they're pink lint. And, yes, there are some clauses with Adidas at least that means they don't pay so much if there is no Champions League football if I recall correctly.
[quote]If the Glazers are willing to spend ?150 million to safeguard contracts worth multiples of that, it makes sense to do it.[/quote]
Exactly. It never made sense before. They had a winning team, spent on young players and hoped they'd develop fast enough to take over aging players. It was a strategy. It doesn't mean they were struggling to find the money, as this summer's spending shows.
[quote]I have told you twice the stock market definition of a "greater fool", so kindly stop returning to it like a dog to its vomit.[/quote]
Not really. I mean, you say it's a term used in stock marketing but you've not really explained it so it makes sense. I mean, I could call you a cunt now, and tell you it's a term used in Cornish tin mining 300 years ago and it means you're a super great guy, but if I didn't explain it further than that you'd probably not believe me. Right?
So let's put this to bed right now. The common parlance type of 'fool' or the stock marketing type of 'fool', it doesn't matter.....if the Glazers are fools for owning Man Utd, tell me which other Premier League club owners are 'fools' and which are not and try and explain your answers. Cheers.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
I don't think I will be parsing your latest missive as you did mine, I think you may have a bit too much time on your hands.
Suffice it to say that Alex Ferguson did not have the money to spend which has been made available to van Gaal. There is a reason for that. It wasn't there.
Utd were paying, as I recall, ?70million a year just in interest. The Glazers are now forced to spend by dint of the collapse in form after Ferguson left. They have spare cash, it would seem, because they sold off part of the club to what are known in the stock market as greater fools. They have certainly negotiated very good sponsorship deals, but it would appear that a lot of that cash has also had to be earmarked to strengthen the team. If Alex Ferguson had been offered ?150million would he have said no to it? That he managed to lead Utd to success on a shoestring does not mean that anyone else could, as events have proved.
In sum, the cost of the Glazers' takeover of Utd must run into hundreds of millions. I don't feel particularly grateful that after ten years they are putting a small percentage of that back into the club.
Suffice it to say that Alex Ferguson did not have the money to spend which has been made available to van Gaal. There is a reason for that. It wasn't there.
Utd were paying, as I recall, ?70million a year just in interest. The Glazers are now forced to spend by dint of the collapse in form after Ferguson left. They have spare cash, it would seem, because they sold off part of the club to what are known in the stock market as greater fools. They have certainly negotiated very good sponsorship deals, but it would appear that a lot of that cash has also had to be earmarked to strengthen the team. If Alex Ferguson had been offered ?150million would he have said no to it? That he managed to lead Utd to success on a shoestring does not mean that anyone else could, as events have proved.
In sum, the cost of the Glazers' takeover of Utd must run into hundreds of millions. I don't feel particularly grateful that after ten years they are putting a small percentage of that back into the club.
-
Arginald Valleywater
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
Was driving past a charity shop this aft and not one but three Man U shirts in the window. And whilst wandering round town not a single new season Man U shirt in sight......
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
Arginald Valleywater wrote:
> Was driving past a charity shop this aft and not one but three
> Man U shirts in the window. And whilst wandering round town not
> a single new season Man U shirt in sight......
Good, it's about time fans stopped being brainwashed into buying overpriced tat.
> Was driving past a charity shop this aft and not one but three
> Man U shirts in the window. And whilst wandering round town not
> a single new season Man U shirt in sight......
Good, it's about time fans stopped being brainwashed into buying overpriced tat.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What's going on at Man Utd then?
Robches man. Look at what you're saying. One minute they have no money and the next they have spare cash to go mental buying big name players. Make your mind up.
Of course they had it and they're spending it now. Simples.
You've still not told me which Premier League owners are 'fools' like the Glazers and why. Or is that something you said in the heat of the moment and didn't actually know what you meant so now trying to pass it off as 'stock market speak'?
Of course they had it and they're spending it now. Simples.
You've still not told me which Premier League owners are 'fools' like the Glazers and why. Or is that something you said in the heat of the moment and didn't actually know what you meant so now trying to pass it off as 'stock market speak'?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]