Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2018/2019 Part Two

Your Airbag · 04-12-2018 05:48PM

Drumpot wrote: »

I think a fair comment is that perhaps I am as bias against Pogba as you are against Jose. That doesn't invalidate our views but it means we interpret what we read in different ways.

No I said one thing on a matter, your tried to make it out I was saying something different. Its as simple as that. If your not going to own up to it fine, but spare us the long winded replies where your doing the mental gymnastics to justify it.

Mitch Connor · 04-12-2018 05:48PM

Zeek12 wrote: »

Don't really agree on the point of the strikers.

Rashford is really a CF.
But rarely gets to play there.
He gets pushed out to wide positions, sometimes to accommodate other more experienced strikers. Or to fit the formation.

Not just by Jose to be fair. LVG did it on occasions.

Two centre forwards at the club isn't really that odd.
Modern formations tend to feature just one traditional no. 9 in the starting XI.

Outside of Aguero and Jesus, who else do City have for that position?

Chelsea only have Morata and Giroud.

Spurs No.9s are Kane and Llorente

I'd go with this as well.

Martial, Rashford and Sanchez are all forwards - who we play in other positions - but they are all forwards.

We only have one target man striker (or one we use that way) in Lukaku, but the other guys could play up front for other sides/in other formations.

damowill · 04-12-2018 05:51PM

Econ__ wrote: »

United’s wage & transfer expenditure over the last 5 years has been on par with City’s, and much higher than that of Chelsea, Spurs & Liverpool.

Your argument is muddled. You seem to be arguing that United need to spend more AND spend it better.

I agree with the latter but the former is a nonsense IMO.

In the last 4 years City have spent 810m, we have spent 560m.

In 2017 alone City spent 320m.

Moyes tenure lacked investment and none of LVG's signings worked out.

One would argue that we had the worse squad of the two, so we should have been the ones to spend more money.

To overtake City, we need a strategy and direction from the Glazers/Woodward and they need to delve deep into their pockets.

Econ__ · 04-12-2018 05:59PM

Drumpot wrote: »

I don't think the figures back that up.

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-united/alletransfers/verein/985
http://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-city/alletransfers/verein/281

2013 Chelsea £117.32 United £69.42 City £116

2014 Chelsea £123.93 United £175.82 City £88.30

2015 Chelsea £81.45 United £140.40 City £208.30

2016 Chelsea £119.52 United £166.50 City £213.50

2017 Chelsea £234.54 United £178.56 City £317.50

2018 Chelsea £123.30 United £74.43 City £71.19

These figures don't include inflation. If you are going to argue Net spend we need to go back further because Chelsea and City were spending way more for way longer so had more expensive players they could sell. Not just that, the fact that other clubs can get more for players they sell shouldn't impact on how a manager is judged. If anything it asks questions about who we are signing and how good Woodward is at offloading them.

From a United Perspective

Versus City - Total Spend City = 1.014 Bil v United £805 million . Only 2 years have we spent more 2014 (£87mil more) and 2018 (£3.24 more)

Versus Chelsea - Total spend Chelsea = £800 v United £805 . Both clubs have outspent the other equally 3 times in this period. Very interesting fact was the three years United outspent Chelsea was when Jose was their manager. Mad that he can work with less at Chelsea and still win a league!

2014 was the only season United outspent both these rivals. Chelsea were the top spender in 2018 and City all the other years spent more on their squad.

Since Jose Took over, United has spent £419, City £602 and Chelsea £477.

Choosing to argue with gross transfer spend figures because you arbitrarily decide that pre 2013 transfer activity prejudices the value of net spend figures is logically cretinous and an engagement in intellectual gymnastics of the highest order.

BazBox · 04-12-2018 06:00PM

Bring back David Gill. Be grand then

Drumpot · 04-12-2018 06:03PM

Your Airbag wrote: »

No I said one thing on a matter, your tried to make it out I was saying something different. Its as simple as that. If your not going to own up to it fine, but spare us the long winded replies where your doing the mental gymnastics to justify it.

Its not mental gymnastics, its elaborating on a point. Im also pointing out that the relationship between the two is whats caused the problem. It sort of feels like you want this place to be an echo chamber, not a place for discussion. You are complaining about me explaining and expanding on my views.

Im trying to engage you but you aren't even interested in responding directly to the points I'm making. If you make a point on something, do you think people shouldn't challenge it ?

This time I said Pogba is well with in his rights to calmly express his
frustration in the DRESING room after a bad result where the manager calls him a
VIRUS in front of the squad.

You don't think the player/manager relationship had any bearing on the response ? You don't think there is any chance at all that Pogba wasn't just calmly expressing his frustration and that there was more to it ? Why is it wrong for me to ask these questions ? Its like you said something and wanted it heard, not discussed.

Drumpot · 04-12-2018 06:06PM

Econ__ wrote: »

Choosing to argue with gross transfer spend figures because you arbitrarily decide that pre 2013 transfer activity prejudices the value of net spend figures is logically cretinous and an engagement in intellectual gymnastics of the highest order.

Really ? Ok, the floor is yours, lets hear your take on our transfer activity. Easy to shoot other peoples ideas down, lets hear yours so. .

Mitch Connor · 04-12-2018 06:06PM

Econ__ wrote: »

Choosing to argue with gross transfer spend figures because you arbitrarily decide that pre 2013 transfer activity prejudices the value of net spend figures is logically cretinous and an engagement in intellectual gymnastics of the highest order.

"United’s wage & transfer expenditure over the last 5 years has been on par with City’s, and much higher than that of Chelsea, Spurs & Liverpool."

Shown figures that City have spent about 250million more in that period, and United and Chelsea have spent about the same.

"BLAH BLAH BLAH RUBBISH ARGUMENT ATTACK ATTACK".

FFS.

Drumpot · 04-12-2018 06:11PM

Your Airbag wrote: »

No I said one thing on a matter, your tried to make it out I was saying something different. Its as simple as that. If your not going to own up to it fine, but spare us the long winded replies where your doing the mental gymnastics to justify it.

Econ__ wrote: »

Choosing to argue with gross transfer spend figures because you arbitrarily decide that pre 2013 transfer activity prejudices the value of net spend figures is logically cretinous and an engagement in intellectual gymnastics of the highest order.

I do love Gymnastics . :pac:

Econ__ · 04-12-2018 06:13PM

Drumpot wrote: »

Really ? Ok, the floor is yours, lets hear your take on our transfer activity. Easy to shoot other peoples ideas down, lets hear yours so. .

Mitch Connor wrote: »

"United’s wage & transfer expenditure over the last 5 years has been on par with City’s, and much higher than that of Chelsea, Spurs & Liverpool."

Shown figures that City have spent about 250million more in that period, and United and Chelsea have spent about the same.

"BLAH BLAH BLAH RUBBISH ARGUMENT ATTACK ATTACK".

FFS.

The combined net spend on transfers & wage expenditure over the last 5 years HAS been on a par with City and greater than Chelsea, Liverpool or Spurs.

Displaying those figures would be a comprehensive & meaningful comparison - anything else is cherry picking figures to fit a narrative.

Mitch Connor · 04-12-2018 06:15PM

Econ__ wrote: »

The combined net spend on transfers & wage expenditure over the last 5 years HAS been on a par with City over the last 5 years.

Displaying those figures would be a comprehensive & meaningful comparison - anything else is cherry picking figures to fit a narrative.

So when you said 'Transfer Spend', you ment 'Net Spend'.

How silly of people to provide an argument based on what you wrote. We should know that what you want to argue about is not what you actually say. Everyone else's fault.

FFS.

DM_7 · 04-12-2018 06:17PM

damowill wrote: »

In the last 4 years City have spent 810m, we have spent 560m.

In 2017 alone City spent 320m.

Moyes tenure lacked investment and none of LVG's signings worked out.

One would argue that we had the worse squad of the two, so we should have been the ones to spend more money.

To overtake City, we need a strategy and direction from the Glazers/Woodward and they need to delve deep into their pockets.

The idea of spend more is a bad idea. United don't have a large oil fund to back up spending. They need to spend an affordable amount in a much better way.

Mitch Connor · 04-12-2018 06:20PM

Oh, and by the by... i think anyone using a net transfer spend comparison and argument is a fkn' idiot. to be honest.

Why the F is the money United generate via commercial income, which they work hard and excellently at to bring in, considered less usable or correct than money brought in for player sales. The club should be generating income to fund outgoings. United spend loads on wages, they also have one of (if not the lowest) ratio's of turnover to wages in europe.

"But my club isn't as well run commercially... so lets just ignore that money!". Idiotic.

What you spend on transfers is what you spend on transfers. Doesn't matter whether that is funded by Kohler or selling Daily Blind.

Drumpot · 04-12-2018 06:21PM

Econ__ wrote: »

The combined net spend on transfers & wage expenditure over the last 5 years HAS been on a par with City and greater than Chelsea, Liverpool or Spurs.

Displaying those figures would be a comprehensive & meaningful comparison - anything else is cherry picking figures to fit a narrative.

So show the figures so, you were the one that made the statement, not me.

And why do you think the amount spent building a squad to 2013 is not relevant ? If a player has a higher value because they are a more expensive signing how do you quantify that in your net spend summary ?

Econ__ · 04-12-2018 06:22PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So when you said 'Transfer Spend', you ment 'Net Spend'.

How silly of people to provide an argument based on what you wrote. We should know that what you want to argue about is not what you actually say. Everyone else's fault.

FFS.

Yes, I did assume that there was an adult consensus that net transfer spend figures would be used in any serious discussion about overall spending patterns. I will try to spell it out with more precision for you in future, though.

TitianGerm · 04-12-2018 06:23PM

Drumpot wrote: »

I don't think the figures back that up.

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-united/alletransfers/verein/985
http://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-city/alletransfers/verein/281

2013 Chelsea £117.32 United £69.42 City £116

2014 Chelsea £123.93 United £175.82 City £88.30

2015 Chelsea £81.45 United £140.40 City £208.30

2016 Chelsea £119.52 United £166.50 City £213.50

2017 Chelsea £234.54 United £178.56 City £317.50

2018 Chelsea £123.30 United £74.43 City £71.19

These figures don't include inflation. If you are going to argue Net spend we need to go back further because Chelsea and City were spending way more for way longer so had more expensive players they could sell. Not just that, the fact that other clubs can get more for players they sell shouldn't impact on how a manager is judged. If anything it asks questions about who we are signing and how good Woodward is at offloading them.

From a United Perspective

Versus City - Total Spend City = 1.014 Bil v United £805 million . Only 2 years have we spent more 2014 (£87mil more) and 2018 (£3.24 more)

Versus Chelsea - Total spend Chelsea = £800 v United £805 . Both clubs have outspent the other equally 3 times in this period. Very interesting fact was the three years United outspent Chelsea was when Jose was their manager. Mad that he can work with less at Chelsea and still win a league!

2014 was the only season United outspent both these rivals. Chelsea were the top spender in 2018 and City all the other years spent more on their squad.

Since Jose Took over, United has spent £419, City £602 and Chelsea £477.

Did you intentionally pick Cities figures in Euro while showing United's in Sterling to inflate the gap?

Mitch Connor · 04-12-2018 06:28PM

TitianGerm wrote: »

Did you intentionally pick Cities figures in Euro while showing United's in Sterling to inflate the gap?

given the use of the £ sign, i would have to think it unintentional.

Drumpot · 04-12-2018 06:30PM

TitianGerm wrote: »

Did you intentionally pick Cities figures in Euro while showing United's in Sterling to inflate the gap?

I didn't actually , just googled each teams history and used the link. Good spot. .

Kirby · 04-12-2018 06:31PM

TitianGerm wrote: »

Did you intentionally pick Cities figures in Euro while showing United's in Sterling to inflate the gap?

Who would do such a thing.

TitianGerm · 04-12-2018 06:32PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

given the use of the £ sign, i would have to think it unintentional.

Fair enough. Seemed odd that City was the only one on TM in Euro but then just added a £ sign in the body.

I think people in here have pointed out that the comparisons to City are pretty irrelevant when Everton, Bournemouth, Leicester etc are all around the same spot in the table and United have vastly outspent those teams.

Drumpot · 04-12-2018 06:35PM

Corrected figures all sterling.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/alletransfers/verein/281
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-ch...ers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manc...ers/verein/985

2013 Chelsea £117.32 United £69.42 City £104.4

2014 Chelsea £123.93 United £175.82 City £79.47

2015 Chelsea £81.45 United £140.40 City £187.47

2016 Chelsea £119.52 United £166.50 City £192.15

2017 Chelsea £234.54 United £178.56 City £285.75

2018 Chelsea £123.30 United £74.43 City £64

Total Spend - United - £ 805 City £913 Chelsea £800

Drumpot · 04-12-2018 06:39PM

TitianGerm wrote: »

Fair enough. Seemed odd that City was the only one on TM in Euro but then just added a £ sign in the body.

I think people in here have pointed out that the comparisons to City are pretty irrelevant when Everton, Bournemouth, Leicester etc are all around the same spot in the table and United have vastly outspent those teams.

It was a genuine error, either you accept that or don't, but thanks at least for taking the time to look at the information.

The spend table shows how badly our club spends money. How can Chelsea and City get more out of their money ? Its not just managers.

Pelligrini, Mancini, Di Matteo even Avram bloody grant all got more out of their teams . . Why can Chelsea and City succeed with relatively average coach's but we are happy to blame every manager we have for our issues?

damowill · 04-12-2018 06:49PM

DM_7 wrote: »

The idea of spend more is a bad idea. United don't have a large oil fund to back up spending. They need to spend an affordable amount in a much better way.

we could perhaps do this if the club had a strategy & philosophy and hired managers with continuity in mind. liverpool had rodgers in before klopp and played the exact same system with a high pressing game so for the players it was an easy transition.

a club like swansea were successful for a number of years as well, hiring managers with similar ethos, and punched above their weight for along time

united have hired moyes, lvg and jose. 3 different philosophies who fancy different type of players. the next manager will want a clear-out of sorts so money will be needed!!

04-12-2018 06:52PM

TitianGerm wrote: »

Fair enough. Seemed odd that City was the only one on TM in Euro but then just added a £ sign in the body.

I think people in here have pointed out that the comparisons to City are pretty irrelevant when Everton, Bournemouth, Leicester etc are all around the same spot in the table and United have vastly outspent those teams.

Pointing to Citys spend versus Uniteds as the 2 richest clubs in the premiership points to a lack of ambition from the top to compete for the top honours and really challenge city.

Pointing to Everton etc points to manger and transfer failings at the club so it all depends on what you want to talk about at the end of the day

04-12-2018 07:14PM

damowill wrote: »

we could perhaps do this if the club had a strategy & philosophy and hired managers with continuity in mind. liverpool had rodgers in before klopp and played the exact same system with a high pressing game so for the players it was an easy transition.

a club like swansea were successful for a number of years as well, hiring managers with similar ethos, and punched above their weight for along time

united have hired moyes, lvg and jose. 3 different philosophies who fancy different type of players. the next manager will want a clear-out of sorts so money will be needed!!

I still think giving Moyes the chance to clear out the deadwood would have alleviated a lot of the problems. Players who'd undermined him or not performed for him are still at the club and when something like that happens you can see where the real problems are rooted.

beno619 · 04-12-2018 07:14PM

Your Airbag wrote: »

Because he's a youth team midfielder who is bang average and playing in defense. I thought that was obvious. Jose has played him in defense and left Bailly on the bench before and even subbed off Lindelöf leaving him on the pitch

Which your well aware off, don't make it out like Jose only picks him because he is forced too and not because he wants too.

Surely you're complaint was in reference to the Southampton game ?

McTominay has played what 4 times this season off the back of truly awful performances from established centre backs.

beno619 · 04-12-2018 07:19PM

bangkok wrote: »

Dont know if i agree with that.. why does fred play so little if thats the case?

With the exception of Young Boys Fred has been pretty crap if we're all honest.

Your Airbag · 04-12-2018 07:44PM

Drumpot wrote: »

Its not mental gymnastics, its elaborating on a point. Im also pointing out that the relationship between the two is whats caused the problem. It sort of feels like you want this place to be an echo chamber, not a place for discussion. You are complaining about me explaining and expanding on my views.

I said I have no problems with what Pogba did this time as it was calmly and in the dressing room, thats how adults should behave. I said when he went to the press last time it was wrong. I clearly differentiated both scenarios and was in favor of Pogba on one issue and against on the other.

You ignored it and said I was trying to make him out to be some "innocent lad" all the time. Thats not you elaborating thats you purposely ignoring or mis-representing what I said.

Drumpot wrote: »

I do love Gymnastics . :pac:

You love mis-representing a point and then dragging it out when called on it.

GSPfan · 04-12-2018 07:46PM

beno619 wrote: »

With the exception of Young Boys Fred has been pretty crap if we're all honest.

He’s played so little I think it’s unfair to say that. And he has been good from what I’ve seen. Nothing special but hardly crap.

GSPfan · 04-12-2018 07:47PM

Lads lets not fight, it’s exactly what Jose wants.

Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2018/2019 Part Two

Comments