Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

herbieflowers · 07-03-2010 10:15PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

he is never going to be world class, cause he doesn't have it in him. Good shot stopper, terrible on crosses and poor command of the area. When VDS was out he did enough to cement his place as number 2, never never 1 though. VDS has shown since he came back just how big the gulf in standard is.

Kuszczak is just not a good enough keeper to be first choice at a top club. He wouldn't be first choice at a top club (well, he'd prob get in ahead of Almunia) and he shouldn't be first choice at United. If his ultimatum is that he is first choice or we sell him, then buh-bye Tommy, imo.

I wouldn't be as dismissive. He's still young, for one.

Goalkeeping is about playing games regularly, and confidence. The two go together. Any time I've seen him recently he's been solid - in all areas. And that's the best compliment you can pay a goalie.

And didn't he play for WBA for a few seasons in the PL? Which led to MU signing him in the first place?

Mitch Connor · 07-03-2010 10:21PM

The Muppet wrote: »

when in realty United fans have **** all to be complaining about.

This sentence shows me and you have nothing to talk about.

If you think them American ********* being the direct cause of, what, 70 million being taken out of the club with NO benifit to the club at all is nothing to complain about, we are completely different in terms of our support of the club. If you think the Glazers putting a once profitable club in a position where we only made a 30odd million profit last season on back of selling Ronaldo for 80million and getting 40million of the AON deal up front before it had even started, is nothing to complain about, then you and me are entirely different in our support of the club.

OH YAY, WE'S BE WINNING ON THE PITCH SO EVERTIN IS GREAT!

Mitch Connor · 07-03-2010 10:23PM

herbieflowers wrote: »

I wouldn't be as dismissive. He's still young, for one.

Goalkeeping is about playing games regularly, and confidence. The two go together. Any time I've seen him recently he's been solid - in all areas. And that's the best compliment you can pay a goalie.

And didn't he play for WBA for a few seasons in the PL? Which led to MU signing him in the first place?

He is nearly 27. He is not young any more.

What exactly is your point with the WBA bit? So what, we signed a keeper who had experience in the prem? So what? Doesn't mean he should be number 1.

CantGetNoSleep · 07-03-2010 11:36PM

kryogen wrote: »

if there is to a takeover attempt, i would need to know alot about the details before i would give my support to it and i would hope all united fans would do their homework before commiting just because they want the Glazers out

not likely i know, but would you want a situation like is happening with the Pompey ownership at our club

United fans are the most fickle you will see when it comes to ownership

I remember at the time of the Rock of Gilbraltar row you could buy tshirts outside Old Trafford saying Fcuk Off Magnier, then can you remember the fans begging him and McManus not to sell when the Glaziers become interested. The two of those just laughed all the way to the bank with the profit that they made

Mitch Connor · 07-03-2010 11:47PM

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

United fans are the most fickle you will see when it comes to ownership

I remember at the time of the Rock of Gilbraltar row you could buy tshirts outside Old Trafford saying Fcuk Off Magnier, then can you remember the fans begging him and McManus not to sell when the Glaziers become interested. The two of those just laughed all the way to the bank with the profit that they made

Please, explain to me how that shows Fickleness in relation to ownership of the club?

1. Magner and McManus used there shareholding in the club to destabelise the club because of a personal argument with Ferguson. The United fans objected to this as it was not good for the club.

2. United fans objected to the proposed ownership of the Glazers because it was not good for the club.

So, please, show me how that is fickle? Both occasions showed the United fans protesting in the best interests of the club and not for personal gain/arguments.

Go on. Enlighten me.

Headshot · 07-03-2010 11:52PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Please, explain to me how that shows Fickleness in relation to ownership of the club?

1. Magner and McManus used there shareholding in the club to destabelise the club because of a personal argument with Ferguson. The United fans objected to this as it was not good for the club.

2. United fans objected to the proposed ownership of the Glazers because it was not good for the club.

So, please, show me how that is fickle? Both occasions showed the United fans protesting in the best interests of the club and not for personal gain/arguments.

Go on. Enlighten me.

dont forget when sky tried to take over

utd fans kicked up a fuss about it

anonymous_joe · 07-03-2010 11:53PM

Headshot wrote: »

dont forget when sky tried to take over

utd fans kicked up a fuss about it

In retrospect, I wish we'd prostituted ourselves and become corporate whores earlier. ><

Headshot · 07-03-2010 11:57PM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

In retrospect, I wish we'd prostituted ourselves and become corporate whores earlier. ><

god Imagine murdoch as our owner, actually I rather not tbh

kryogen · 07-03-2010 11:58PM

could mention another set of fans, or maybe two who are quite fickle in that regard, but dont wanna drag them into it tbh, and besides, the cold hard facts are all football fans are fickle to a degree anyway

Your understanding of the Magnier/McManus situation is incorrect though

i assume your not a united fan though, so i guess you probably wouldnt have the details too clearly, understandable, and hey if it serves to have a pop at the fans or the club then all the better yeah

kryogen · 08-03-2010 12:00AM

Headshot wrote: »

god Imagine murdoch as our owner, actually I rather not tbh

as much as it makes you shudder, i reckon we would be better off

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 12:02AM

kryogen wrote: »

as much as it makes you shudder, i reckon we would be better off

indeed - Sky would LOVE having there flagship team having the best players.

Also, how funny would it be if fans of every other team were contributing to United's transfer fund with their Sky Sports subs!

CantGetNoSleep · 08-03-2010 12:09AM

I agree Magnier nearly fcuked up the club as Ferguson could have gone if he had stayed

But does nobody remember fans groups begging him not to sell to the Glaziers, not that long after wearing tshirts telling him to fcuk up, that is how the fans are fickle

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 12:15AM

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I agree Magnier nearly fcuked up the club as Ferguson could have gone if he had stayed

But does nobody remember fans groups begging him not to sell to the Glaziers, not that long after wearing tshirts telling him to fcuk up, that is how the fans are fickle

We do remember, but it doesn't show fickleness - it shows fans protesting for the best interests of the club.

While they were trying to distablise the club they were not wanted (understandable?) While they could stop the club going into debt by not selling to Glazer (anyone but Glazer) people didn't want them to sell to the Glazers (understandable?)

The United fans wanted a stable and safe club, and protested for it on many occasions. The goals were not fickle, just the people that were being protested against changed.

kryogen · 08-03-2010 12:15AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

indeed - Sky would LOVE having there flagship team having the best players.

Also, how funny would it be if fans of every other team were contributing to United's transfer fund with their Sky Sports subs!

Lol that would be classic actually!

kryogen · 08-03-2010 12:20AM

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I agree Magnier nearly fcuked up the club as Ferguson could have gone if he had stayed

But does nobody remember fans groups begging him not to sell to the Glaziers, not that long after wearing tshirts telling him to fcuk up, that is how the fans are fickle

Your understanding seems deeply flawed to me

The fans who protested against Magnier/McManus were not protesting them as owners, they were showing support for the manager, our manager, the guy who convinced them to invest in the club in the first place

the fans were not begging Magnier/McManus to stay as owners, they were never owners, but Glazer needed their shares to complete his takeover

where is the fickleness, its not like the fans started declaring love for Magnier, they just didnt want the Glazers to take over

bigger fish to fry so to speak

Magnier was still not going to be flavour of the month at OT cause the fans back the boss, but the greater evil was the Glazer family and that was the priority for the fans

*im watching 24 so im a bit ramby there, hope the gist makes sense

EDIT- just read Mitch's post, his explanation is much easier to understand id imagine

jaykay74 · 08-03-2010 08:44AM

Not the curse of Utds defence again

Hopefully it is just a 2+2=5 type of story. Its only the mail carrying it as far as I can see.

Wes Brown fears his World Cup dream is over after breaking a bone in his left foot and leaving England and Manchester United lurching into a defensive crisis.

The defender went for scans yesterday amid concerns he has broken the fifth metatarsal and expects to find out on Monday whether he will be out for as long as three months.

That would leave Brown with little or no game time prior to the World Cup and may even open the door for team-mate Gary Neville to make a remarkable return to the England squad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1256232/Crocked-Wes-Browns-World-Cup-fear-Manchester-United-defender-major-doubt-South-Africa.html

The Muppet · 08-03-2010 08:48AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

This sentence shows me and you have nothing to talk about.

If you think them American ********* being the direct cause of, what, 70 million being taken out of the club with NO benifit to the club at all is nothing to complain about, we are completely different in terms of our support of the club. If you think the Glazers putting a once profitable club in a position where we only made a 30odd million profit last season on back of selling Ronaldo for 80million and getting 40million of the AON deal up front before it had even started, is nothing to complain about, then you and me are entirely different in our support of the club.

OH YAY, WE'S BE WINNING ON THE PITCH SO EVERTIN IS GREAT!

I could be as dismissive of your opinions if I wished to be rude about it. Having nothing to talk about and having nothing you want to hear are completely different things.

If you're more interested in the owners than the team that's fine, each to their own but at least inform youself of the reality of the situation before spouting rubbish to me.

If United are so FCuked tell me why are these business men queing up to pay double what the Glazers paid for the Club? The problem with teh anti glazer brigade is that they haven't a clue about the true Value of Mancheter United and it's perepensity to created revenue into the future.

Mancheter United is Unique and these Buisness men know well that even at £2 billion they would be getting it on the cheep and as revenue streams are optimised will be able to make a nice profit on that return. Their problem is that Glazer knows this too which is why he won't sell, he knows that the Debt is manageable and is not a major issue in business terms.

Bottom line for me is that I am a realist and I know buisness men will own Mancheter United into the future, once it doesn't impeach on the pitch or reputation of the club I don't give a &*^% who these business men are and I have no intention of being used as a mouthpiece by any of them, They can sort it out amoung themselves, so yay your last sentence is pretty much spot on.

enviro · 08-03-2010 11:21AM

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=752463&sec=england&cc=5739

Good news if true.

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 11:26AM

good news that the money would be there (if true, i'm unconvinced given the information given in the Bond prospectus)

Not sure about a striker and a keeper, not this summer anyway.

VDS has signed on for another year, so I think going for a top class keeper is the way to go.

Rooney has proven a revelation up front on his own and I think Berbatov, Kiko, Owen, Diouf are enough for the occasions that we go two up top.

I'd make a left sided midfielder and an attacking, creative central midfielder the priorities. Gourcuff would be my number 1 target this summer.

fish fingers · 08-03-2010 11:27AM

enviro wrote: »

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=752463&sec=england&cc=5739

Good news if true.

God bless that "insider" Where would we be without him

Spud83 · 08-03-2010 11:27AM

Has to be left sided midfielder for me. We need some one who can play there naturally.

Headshot · 08-03-2010 11:44AM

enviro wrote: »

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=752463&sec=england&cc=5739

Good news if true.

80m , good one and pigs can fly

Smegball · 08-03-2010 11:49AM

Akinfeev and don't honestly have a clue which striker we will go for, Aguero would be great but too expensive I would say.

SlickRic · 08-03-2010 11:52AM

Headshot wrote: »

80m , good one and pigs can fly

neil_18_ · 08-03-2010 12:10PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1256165/Manchester-United-swoop-Belgian-defender-Vermijl-Standard-Liege.html

Manchester United in swoop for Belgian defender Vermijl from Standard Liege

Not the most reliable source:p

The Muppet · 08-03-2010 12:13PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

good news that the money would be there (if true, i'm unconvinced given the information given in the Bond prospectus)

Not sure about a striker and a keeper, not this summer anyway.

VDS has signed on for another year, so I think going for a top class keeper is the way to go.

Rooney has proven a revelation up front on his own and I think Berbatov, Kiko, Owen, Diouf are enough for the occasions that we go two up top.

I'd make a left sided midfielder and an attacking, creative central midfielder the priorities. Gourcuff would be my number 1 target this summer.

It'll blow a pretty big hole in the "we haven't a pot to piss in" brigades argument if true and hopefully put an end to the scaremongering.

"No one is going to force the Glazers to sell, and I would doubt whether the Glazers would even entertain these guys, even if they did change their minds one day. There seems to be no proof of funds - the likelihood is that they would borrow heavily in any case - so what is the difference?"
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=752463&sec=england&cc=5739

Great stuff,

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 12:17PM

The Muppet wrote: »

It'll blow a pretty big hole in the "we haven't a pot to piss in" brigades argument if true and hopefully put an end to the scaremongering.

No it won't.

The Bond prospectus showed we had no money in the bank, but that we had arranged a large credit facility for signings.

United spending 80million proves nothing. It could easily be that the money we spend is money borrowed, which just further puts United into debt.

The Muppet · 08-03-2010 12:23PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

No it won't.

The Bond prospectus showed we had no money in the bank, but that we had arranged a large credit facility for signings.

United spending 80million proves nothing. It could easily be that the money we spend is money borrowed, which just further puts United into debt.

Yada Yada Yada.

Who Gives a **** , the manager getting the support and funds he needs is all fans should be concerned about, once that continues to happen most supporters will be happy.

Do you honestly think that people purchase buisness's worth Billions out of personal wealth? How naive!

It's more likely to be Ronaldo money, you know the money your lot say the Glazers bled from the club, I hope it happens, I look forward to having something to talk about if it does.

Boggles · 08-03-2010 12:30PM

To be honest I can't see how there can be any doubt that the cash is not there.

Few reasons.

As much as people like to think that the Glazers are the spawn of satan, they arn't. They are incredibly intelligent businessmen who arn't naive enough to think that Brand United will prosper without signing good players.

If all the reports are true, the Yanks can earn a fortune from the takeover of the Red Knights, if they decline it proves to me anyways they are in it for the long run.

Fergie has said on numerous occasions that he has money.

Fergie tried to buy Benzema, enquired about Ribery and offered 20 million for Tevez and a massive contract.

In the past 6 months we have signed Owen, Valencia, Obertan, Smalling and a few other young fellas, - thats 30 million at a conservative estimate there.

People seem to jump to conclusions because we havn't splashed 40 million on the next "big thing", therefore we are potless. Where the truth is Madrid ruined the market, United have never spent more than 31 million on a player and in the current economic climate that shouldn't be broken for a few years to come.

Then there is the arguement that the quality of the player simply isn't out there.

I have a sneaky feeling there will be a double swoop for the 2 up and coming French stars and maybe a cheeky bid for Carlton Cole.

To be honest at the right prices, I would be happy enough with that for the summer spending.

Cole has his injury problems. Hargreaves Part 2?

Gourcuff is extremely right footed, can he play on the left?

Lloris looks like a very exciting prospect.

I don't know if they will be success or failures.

What I do know though is Fergie most defiantely has a short list and this summer is a far better time to pursue them than last.

redout · 08-03-2010 12:32PM

Those bidding to buy Manchester United FC from the Glazers may want to read this first!

There’s been something reaching media hysteria over the idea that a group of Red Knights led by Jim O’Neill, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, will sweep into Manchester in something akin to a boardroom coup and snatch the world’s most famous football club from the grasp of the Glazer family.

And create a healthy return on investment for the secretive US family firm in the process!

Suggested valuations on the club swing ever more wildly from week to week– the latest was at the weekend when a value of £1.25 billion was being mooted by The Sunday Times.

All this conjecture is the stuff of great sports journalism, but does it make good business sense?

There is a lot of discussion on the level of debt that the club is currently carrying and how this will be removed by the Red Knights.

But have these well-endowed individuals agreed on what the Man Utd brand is actually worth?

I doubt it.

How much of the £1.25 billion is for the intangibles that the Glazers own and how much of it is wrapped up in the tangibles like Old Trafford stadium?

The reason I raise this is because in essence the Red Knights will be expected to pay a premium price for the brand, rather than the computer system or quality of the dressing rooms at Old Trafford.

So brand valuation will be a key issue.

And it’s one area that traditionally accountants love to hate as there’s never been an agreed method of measuring this value with some clarity.

Which is why 1st April 2010 could be a turning point in the Man Utd saga as the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO) publishes the long-awaited standard on the thorny issue of brand valuation.

Aimed at both brand consultants and finance and marketing professionals, the general requirements of the new standard will include greater transparency of the process of brand valuation in deals like the one being contemplated by the Red Knights.

There are likely to be enshrined within the standard – and adopted here in the UK by the British Standards Institution (BSI) – three distinct approaches to brand valuation:

1. The Income Approach – which measures the value of the brand by reference to the present value of economic benefits
2. The Market Approach – which measures the value of the brand based on what other purchasers in the market paid for similar assets
3. The Cost Approach – which measures the value of the brand based on the cost invested in it.

Valuation inputs include assessments of market data, brand strength – based on factors such as awareness and loyalty, brand relevance in its specific market and legal aspects such as intellectual property rights (IPRs).

It will be the application of these standards that are likely to become a major area of contention in any potential sale involving a global brand like Man Utd.

Each side will claim that its workings achieve the right financial outturn for each measure – except they are unlikely to agree!

Which could mean that the Red Knights pay less for the club than is currently being mooted.

Alternatively, the Glazers may decide that this isn’t the right time to sell and put this off until the club is likely to have increased in brand value relative to the size of other English Premier League Clubs.
In which case the asking price could be double what’s on the table today.

Brand republic

Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments