Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - Mod Notes in OP,22/7

The Moldy Gowl

Larry Wildman wrote: »

It's not "pound lb"...it's "pound sterling".

How difficult a concept is it that a bad £28m signing is worse than a bad £3.5m signing?

What is ridiculous about that?

Ya I got that, cheers.



There is about a million different reasons why a fee is different.

You can't simply say ya he cost more therefore he is worse.

RichFTW

Larry Wildman wrote: »

The point is that if you've a few contenders for worst signing ever and one cost at least eight times as much as the others, it's pretty clear who your "winner" is.

My point though is that he was so bad, it would be like United spending 3.5m on someone they randomly took off the street thus making it the worst signing regardless of what Fellaini cost. 3.5m on someone who shouldn't have been a footballer is worse than 28m on a player who had proved he could be competitive in the premier league. Even if the transfer was about 8m too much.

Also Fellaini has only played one season for United in a year where most of the players were poor.

Larry Wildman

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

So was djemba 25 million times not as bad?

Oh dear...

If Player A cost £7m and Player B cost £28m, which of the following statements is true?

- Player B cost 21 million times as much as Player A.

- Player B cost four times as much as Player A.

Larry Wildman

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Ya I got that, cheers.



There is about a million different reasons why a fee is different.

You can't simply say ya he cost more therefore he is worse.

Eh, yes you can!

Imagine you were the manager of Manchester United. You sign two players, one on a free transfer and one for £50m. Both turn out to be disastrous signings. Which signing is worse?

I would genuinely challenge anyone to name a worse "pound for pound" United signing than Fellaini.

adox

Lads have youse calculated inflation into this? :pac:

zarquon

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

You can't simply say ya he cost more therefore he is worse.

The argument you are failing to see is the difference between a worse player or a worse signing.

Djemba Djemba might be a slightly worse player than Fellani but fellani cost 8 times more therefore Fellani is clearly the worse signing. To have the same value for money, Fellani would need to be 8 times better than Djemba Djemba.

Of course there are inflationary increases to consider but there is still enough to say that Fellani was a worse signing.

keane2097

I feel dumber for reading the last couple of pages.

user2011

I blame Headshot.

sigmundv

adox wrote: »

Lads have youse calculated inflation into this? :pac:

This is a good point. What is £3.5m or £8m in 2013 prices?

adox

zarquon wrote: »

The argument you are failing to see is the difference between a worse player or a worse signing.

Djemba Djemba might be a slightly worse player than Fellani but fellani cost 8 times more therefore Fellani is clearly the worse signing. To have the same value for money, Fellani would need to be 8 times better than Djemba Djemba.

Of course there are inflationary increases to consider but there is still enough to say that Fellani was a worse signing.

:pac:

Larry Wildman

sigmundv wrote: »

This is a good point. What is £3.5m or £8m in 2013 prices?

There's an article that adjusts the figures:

https://betting.betfair.com/betting/oddly-enough/the-10-biggest-manchester-united-transfer-flops-151113-629.html

It claims that Poborsky's £3.5m is equivalent to £13.3m in today's terms (from a football perspective - Actual inflation clearly isn't that high).

adox

There's net spend to consider too.

user2011

adox wrote: »

There's net spend to consider too.

I thought that was a Liverpool thing.. :eek:

beaverfever

Hope to God we get Vidal and not Carvalho. Hummels would be amazing as well but not very likely so Lovren would be my 1st preference after him

sigmundv

****'s sake, Robin is caught offside again and again tonight. This is what we have slated Chicha for.

Deiseboy01

adox wrote: »

Lads have youse calculated inflation into this? :pac:

Oh God!

Deiseboy01

adox wrote: »

Lads have youse calculated inflation into this? :pac:

Oh God!

Deiseboy01

Larry Wildman wrote: »

There's an article that adjusts the figures:

https://betting.betfair.com/betting/oddly-enough/the-10-biggest-manchester-united-transfer-flops-151113-629.html

It claims that Poborsky's £3.5m is equivalent to £13.3m in today's terms (from a football perspective - Actual inflation clearly isn't that high).

Oh holy mother of jesus and all the saints

Deiseboy01

adox wrote: »

There's net spend to consider too.

God. Holy mother of Jesus and all the saints. Plus the micky of the holy ghost. Please nooooooooooooooooo!

The Moldy Gowl

Have we forgot about interest rates as well?

What about the oppurtunity cost of the money?

redbaron_99

Back pages tomorrow are going with vidal to united for 50m + nani.

Trigger

The lot of ye tonight :pac:

Hococop

redbaron_99 wrote: »

Back pages tomorrow are going with vidal to united for 50m + nani.

euro or pounds?

The Moldy Gowl

Van gaal. Subbing on a striker for a defender.

Wouldn't see moyes doing that.

What a sexy old man.

DARK-KNIGHT

I remember coming in here to discuss united...


what the **** happened the last day or two

redbaron_99

Hococop wrote: »

euro or pounds?

Pounds

Deiseboy01

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Have we forgot about interest rates as well?

What about the oppurtunity cost of the money?

There's a statue down in Ballinspittle doing handstands, please stop!

ElChe32

LVG...I love this man.

user2011

Krul :eek::eek::eek: