Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

3hn2givr7mx1sc · 10-04-2010 01:59AM

Anyone been keeping score in Pro. F v The Muppet?:pac:

starbelgrade · 10-04-2010 02:41AM

baz2009 wrote: »

Anyone been keeping score in Pro. F v The Muppet?:pac:

It looks like it might be going to penalties.

d22ontour · 10-04-2010 03:40AM

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

Sarcasm. That post has.
White text. That post also has.
Lighten up. You need to do.

Ah i see, so white text and a smiley makes it funny ?Or maybe it's your witty yoda type reply too ? Still doesn't take from it being irrelevant.Maybe if i reply with nonsense i can thanks whore be too ? :rolleyes:

starbelgrade · 10-04-2010 03:49AM

d22ontour wrote: »

Ah i see, so white text and a smiley makes it funny ?Or maybe it's your witty yoda type reply too ? Still doesn't take from it being irrelevant.Maybe if i reply with nonsense i can thanks whore be too ? :rolleyes:

In response to your 3 questions...

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

Otherwise, footie talk without the bit of craic that's often displayed on this forum, would be quite dull. And we get enough dullness in Ireland with the weather methinks.

Feel free to disagree in a serious tone.

Valmont · 10-04-2010 08:42AM

I would really like to see Macheda and Berbatov up front in a 4-4-2 formation. I really think Berbatov would excel with that set up. Here's hoping anyway. I know everyone is giving him a rough time but he did score two goals against Bolton so I would back him to get at least one.

Boggles · 10-04-2010 11:11AM

MementoMori wrote: »

Very interesting bit about buying Hernandez now as otherwise there was a danger of not being able to afford him.

Where did he say that that?

MementoMori · 10-04-2010 11:48AM

Boggles wrote: »

Where did he say that that?

Clearly he was talking about his price rising if he does well at the world cup.

The bit in bold

"if he went to the World Cup and did well, we were going to lose him."

- or did you think that SAF was afraid he might wander off into the veldt and because of his lack of height, Utd might lose track of him and he was going to end up adopted by a family of meerkats???

Ferguson has admitted he did not bring Benzema to Old Trafford because he thought the €35m (£30.7m) fee Real Madrid paid Lyon was inflated, adding that United had to move swiftly to sign Hernández from Chivas de Guadalajara once he made the Mexican national squad because his price was in danger of rising. "That created a problem for us," he said, "because, if he went to the World Cup and did well, we were going to lose him."

Boggles · 10-04-2010 11:58AM

MementoMori wrote: »

Clearly he was talking about his price rising if he does well at the world cup.

Clearly yes.

Thats not the same as saying they couldn't afford him though is it?

You put that particular spin on it yourself, didn't you?

What he is saying is, if he did well in the world cup, his price would have hyper inflated, meaning he would have to pay well over the odds for a untested unproven young player. Something I, and no other United fan want to see.

But i suppose that is not as sensational as the angle you went in at.

MementoMori · 10-04-2010 12:15PM

Sorry for my massive spin interpretation

"if he went to the World Cup and did well

which would mean his price would rise

"we were going to lose him"

Obviously a huge leap to not being able to not being able to afford him if his price rises.

How was I so silly.

Apologies.

Also just in case you might what to stick one of those GPS ankle-trackers on him as it really would be a shame to lose him in the veldt. Better safe than sorry and all that.

Boggles · 10-04-2010 12:25PM

MementoMori wrote: »

Obviously a huge leap to not being able to not being able to afford him if his price rises.

Was it a huge leap to come to the conlcusion that the World Cup has the potential to over inflate player prices and taking action before the world cup would be good business?

MementoMori wrote: »

Also just in case you might what to stick one of those GPS ankle-trackers on him as it really would be a shame to lose him in the veldt. Better safe than sorry and all that.

Brilliant, Comedy Gold. lol lol. Oh my god my sides!!

Pro. F · 10-04-2010 12:33PM

d22ontour wrote: »

Ah i see, so white text and a smiley makes it funny ?Or maybe it's your witty yoda type reply too ? Still doesn't take from it being irrelevant.Maybe if i reply with nonsense i can thanks whore be too ? :rolleyes:

jesus man chill out, his post was just a bit of crack

James Forde · 10-04-2010 01:26PM

FFS lads grow up would ye, it's like the ladies lounge around here today

KittyeeTrix · 10-04-2010 01:28PM

bryanjf wrote: »

FFS lads grow up would ye, it's like the ladies lounge around here today

Excuse me, that's an insult to us "ladies" on here:D:D

Mitch Connor · 10-04-2010 01:45PM

MementoMori wrote: »

Sorry for my massive spin interpretation

which would mean his price would rise

Obviously a huge leap to not being able to not being able to afford him if his price rises.

How was I so silly.

Apologies.

Also just in case you might what to stick one of those GPS ankle-trackers on him as it really would be a shame to lose him in the veldt. Better safe than sorry and all that.

For me, it is as likely to mean he would increase his reputation and other sides would come in for him, and at least make it more difficult. I reckon Fergie means circumstances forced us to move earlier then we wanted to, such as it did with Rooney and Ronaldo.

GSPfan · 10-04-2010 01:51PM

The thread is fookin depressin with all the bitchy arguements. Give it a bleedin rest. If you can't agree after one or two quoted replies then you never will. Just end it. Lets say you're both right!

GSPfan · 10-04-2010 02:22PM

Does anyone know if Joao Moutinho is a regular starter for PORTUGAL?

I think he's an excellent player. If you believe in replacement players for outgoing players then he would be my choice to fill Scholes boots. I firmly believe Wenger would go for him if Fabregas decides to go to Barcelona. He's got it all. And before anyone points out the obvious..... Yes he's only playing in Portugal and yes he's a risk and yes he'd be a high price but you gotta take a chance some time.

I'm looking forward to the World Cup now big time, just to see the talent we may be interested in, or have already purchased.

The Muppet · 10-04-2010 02:28PM

Pro. F wrote: »

Funny that you ask me for a simple yes no answer but then don't give one yourself.

Here's my answer: I don't know if Ferguson is lying about having cash available for transfers. I do know that the financial statement shows that there is no cash available, only a credit facility. So either:
1 He is lying
2 He is telling a half truth (eg neglecting to mention that the 'cash' is actually only credit)
3 He is telling what he believes is the truth but he himself has been mislead

I would prefer to avoid arguing about the theoretical likelihood of Ferguson lying/obfuscating/being mislead because, as far as i'm concerned, the availability of the financial data and his lack of impartiality makes it irrelevant.
(edited to add 'lack of'!)

No I don't know why you asked the question but tbh I do dread to think that you may actually be trying to start a debate on this topic.

But I did Give a yes/no answer to the question I posed.

If you prefer not arguing about theoritical likely hood of issues surronding the club why are you doing exatly that with you anti Glazer stance. The club is still doing quite well is it not? The debt is not theoritical but it is being serviced adequetly by club earnings , The problems you see with it are theoritiocal are they not? The sale of the training ground and it being leased back is theoritical? The sale of the stadium name is theoritical? Ticket prices rising year on year was theoritical and has just been proven to be false?

In fact leaving the theoritical stuff aside, what are your issues with the owners?

You persitant side stepping of a simple question indicates to me that you have no interest in debate. You are either calling the Manager a liar or you're not. You are only interested in pushing you own flawed agenda.

Ha Ha Cash Credit , How many multi million pound business deal is cash do you think? That aside again you are rowing back, In the post you initally questioned I said I believe there are there are funds available to the manager because he said there were. I never stipulated whether the funds were cash or credit. Boggles made a similar point and he was told he was talking ****e.

herbieflowers · 10-04-2010 02:37PM

GSPfan wrote: »

Does anyone know if Joao Moutinho is a regular starter for PORTUGAL?

I think he's an excellent player. If you believe in replacement players for outgoing players then he would be my choice to fill Scholes boots. I firmly believe Wenger would go for him if Fabregas decides to go to Barcelona. He's got it all. And before anyone points out the obvious..... Yes he's only playing in Portugal and yes he's a risk and yes he'd be a high price but you gotta take a chance some time.

I'm looking forward to the World Cup now big time, just to see the talent we may be interested in, or have already purchased.

Tbh, I can't see Fergie taking a risk on an established talent from aborad. He may sign a few raw players from abroad that haven't made too much of a name for themselves yet, but given his transfer market tendencies (aside from, in the last few seasons, Hargreaves and van Nistelrooy) I'd reckon any major signings this summer (if at all) will come from the PL.

keane2097 · 10-04-2010 02:45PM

The Muppet wrote: »

That aside again you are rowing back, In the post you initally questioned I said I believe there are there are funds available to the manager because he said there were. I never stipulated whether the funds were cash or credit. Boggles made a similar point and he was told he was talking ****e.

I think everybody who's read the financial statement knows it says there are no reserves for purchasing players and that any purchases would require the use of an overdraft facility.

Pro F has said this multiple times.

Do you really get pleasure out of "winning" arguments by being pedantic and dodging questions?

yabadabado · 10-04-2010 02:48PM

herbieflowers wrote: »

Tbh, I can't see Fergie taking a risk on an established talent from aborad. He may sign a few raw players from abroad that haven't made too much of a name for themselves yet, but given his transfer market tendencies (aside from, in the last few seasons, Hargreaves and van Nistelrooy) I'd reckon any major signings this summer (if at all) will come from the PL.

the only problem with fergie buying from within in the EPL is there are few midfield options in the league that we could buy at the moment who we could afford and/or would join us.Rodwell is one but he will be very expensive and is unproven atm.there seems to be very few MF out there at moment,we have been linked with Defour in the past but i think he is still injured.

3hn2givr7mx1sc · 10-04-2010 02:58PM

GSPfan wrote: »

Does anyone know if Joao Moutinho is a regular starter for PORTUGAL?

I think he's an excellent player. If you believe in replacement players for outgoing players then he would be my choice to fill Scholes boots. I firmly believe Wenger would go for him if Fabregas decides to go to Barcelona. He's got it all. And before anyone points out the obvious..... Yes he's only playing in Portugal and yes he's a risk and yes he'd be a high price but you gotta take a chance some time.

I'm looking forward to the World Cup now big time, just to see the talent we may be interested in, or have already purchased.

So was Ronaldo.:pac:

The Muppet · 10-04-2010 03:12PM

keane2097 wrote: »

I think everybody who's read the financial statement knows it says there are no reserves for purchasing players and that any purchases would require the use of an overdraft facility.

Pro F has said this multiple times.

Do you really get pleasure out of "winning" arguments by being pedantic and dodging questions?

True but nobody said anything to the contrary. I will remind you that the Club has already agreed to player purchases to the vlue of over £16 million this year. That in mind the "we have no money to buy players" is a pretty weak opening gambit.

You can't win an argument unless you are right to start off with. Calling the manager a liar with no grounds to back it up is pretty poor starting position TBF. It's not too difficult to rubbish such a weak argument.

Keep throwing those punches you might land one yet.;)

Pro. F · 10-04-2010 04:25PM

The Muppet wrote: »

But I did Give a yes/no answer to the question I posed.

No you did not. This is the answer you gave:

The Muppet wrote: »

To make it easier for you I don't know if he's telling lies or not for sure but it is my opinion that he's not for the reason's I stated in an earlier post.

That is not a yes no answer. That is an ''I don't know for sure but I think so'' answer. Which is completely reasonable btw. My answer was also reasonable...

Pro. F wrote: »

Here's my answer: I don't know if Ferguson is lying about having cash available for transfers. I do know that the financial statement shows that there is no cash available, only a credit facility. So either:
1 He is lying
2 He is telling a half truth (eg neglecting to mention that the 'cash' is actually only credit)
3 He is telling what he believes is the truth but he himself has been mislead

The Muppet wrote: »

You persitant side stepping of a simple question indicates to me that you have no interest in debate. You are either calling the Manager a liar or you're not.

I am not side stepping the question. I have given my answer as clearly as I can. It is not as simple as ''either calling the manager a liar or not'', and to claim such is silly. To insist that I haven't answered the question, when I clearly have, is frankly childish.

The Muppet wrote: »

If you prefer not arguing about theoritical likely hood of issues surronding the club...

No I said I didn't want to argue about the theoretical likelihood of whether ferguson is lying or not. And I gave good reason.

The Muppet wrote: »

The club is still doing quite well is it not?

Not financially. The club is currently crippled by debt. This has been shown to you.

The Muppet wrote: »

The debt is not theoritical but it is being serviced adequetly by club earnings

The debt is having a massive negative effect on our club. This has been shown to you.

The Muppet wrote: »

The problems you see with it are theoritiocal are they not? The sale of the training ground and it being leased back is theoritical? The sale of the stadium name is theoritical? Ticket prices rising year on year was theoritical and has just been proven to be false?

Yes there is theory, until each particular thing happens then that particular part of the discussion is theoretical. I hold one theory, you hold another. I, and others, have provided good, well reasoned and evidenced arguments for my theory. You have not done the same for your theory.

Here is something that is not theoretical: despite selling Ronaldo for 80m and getting a large chunk of the Aon sponsorship money upfront we will still need to incur more debt if we want to make a net spend on player transfers.

On the ticket prices, they were rising steadily until the massive protests, when they were frozen.

Btw, I don't believe that the sale of the stadium name has been raised as an issue before. Maybe I'm misremembering, there has been a LOT discussed

The Muppet wrote: »

In fact leaving the theoritical stuff aside, what are your issues with the owners?

I have explained that at great length and in great detail during debates with you previously. It clearly was a waste of time then, so I'm not going to repeat myself now.

The Muppet wrote: »

You are only interested in pushing you own flawed agenda.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I'm only interested in ''pushing a flawed agenda''. And with regard to flaws in my argument, the last two or three times we discussed this on here, all of your points were refuted and you failed to make a counter argument. So you have not yet been unable to back up this claim about flaws in my argument.

The Muppet wrote: »

Ha Ha Cash Credit , How many multi million pound business deal is cash do you think? That aside again you are rowing back, In the post you initally questioned I said I believe there are there are funds available to the manager because he said there were. I never stipulated whether the funds were cash or credit. Boggles made a similar point and he was told he was talking ****e.

This is ridiculous pedantism. I have explained the problem I have - that despite massive revenues at the club and massive profit on a player transfer, we will still need to incur more debt if we want a net spend on transfers. If you are actually ok with that then fine. I am certainly not!

Your misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, of what I was referring to with the term ''credit'' shows that you either don't want to discuss the topic seriously, or are unable to do so.

GSPfan · 10-04-2010 04:28PM

For Fook Sake

^^^^^

GSPfan · 10-04-2010 04:37PM

yabadabado wrote: »

the only problem with fergie buying from within in the EPL is there are few midfield options in the league that we could buy at the moment who we could afford and/or would join us.Rodwell is one but he will be very expensive and is unproven atm.there seems to be very few MF out there at moment,we have been linked with Defour in the past but i think he is still injured.

Scott Parker is someone I'd like to see in a United Shirt. He has a lot of qualities. He runs himself into the ground and he's very attack minded with his passing.
He is nearly 30 now I think

but that would mean the price would be low as a result.

If United could line up every game with...
Valencia Fletcher Hargreaves Nani
....in full fitness and decent form, then I'd be very happy but its almost impossible to get consistency and fitness from all 4 of them at the same time.

Headshot · 10-04-2010 04:37PM

wont someone please think of the children

ziggyman17 · 10-04-2010 04:48PM

The Muppet wrote: »

But I did Give a yes/no answer to the question I posed.

If you prefer not arguing about theoritical likely hood of issues surronding the club why are you doing exatly that with you anti Glazer stance. The club is still doing quite well is it not? The debt is not theoritical but it is being serviced adequetly by club earnings , The problems you see with it are theoritiocal are they not? The sale of the training ground and it being leased back is theoritical? The sale of the stadium name is theoritical? Ticket prices rising year on year was theoritical and has just been proven to be false?

In fact leaving the theoritical stuff aside, what are your issues with the owners?

You persitant side stepping of a simple question indicates to me that you have no interest in debate. You are either calling the Manager a liar or you're not. You are only interested in pushing you own flawed agenda.

Ha Ha Cash Credit , How many multi million pound business deal is cash do you think? That aside again you are rowing back, In the post you initally questioned I said I believe there are there are funds available to the manager because he said there were. I never stipulated whether the funds were cash or credit. Boggles made a similar point and he was told he was talking ****e.

What a load of rubbish.. Before the gimps took over there was no debt.. The club did'nt have to worry about paying interest of a huge.. Granted shareholders had to be paid, but that was no were near what the club is paying now in interest alone, never mind paying money off the actual debt, if the gimps never took over, utd would have so much money now, that they would'nt know what to do with it.. Hopefully there is a bycott next season and these parasites get run out of town..

Le King · 10-04-2010 05:01PM

OMG will you two take this squabble to PM's or something. No point in train wrecking this thread for the rest of us.

Peyton Manning · 10-04-2010 05:04PM

Agreed.

Lads, some of ye are doing your best to ruin this thread. Just give it a rest ffs.

The Muppet · 10-04-2010 05:10PM

Pro. F wrote: »

No you did not. This is the answer you gave:
That is not a yes no answer. That is an ''I don't know for sure but I think so'' answer. Which is completely reasonable btw. My answer was also reasonable...

I am not side stepping the question. I have given my answer as clearly as I can. It is not as simple as ''either calling the manager a liar or not'', and to claim such is silly. To insist that I haven't answered the question, when I clearly have, is frankly childish.

No I said I didn't want to argue about the theoretical likelihood of whether ferguson is lying or not. And I gave good reason.

Not financially. The club is currently crippled by debt. This has been shown to you.

The debt is having a massive negative effect on our club. This has been shown to you.

Yes there is theory, until each particular thing happens then that particular part of the discussion is theoretical. I hold one theory, you hold another. I, and others, have provided good, well reasoned and evidenced arguments for my theory. You have not done the same for your theory.

Here is something that is not theoretical: despite selling Ronaldo for 80m and getting a large chunk of the Aon sponsorship money upfront we will still need to incur more debt if we want to make a net spend on player transfers.

On the ticket prices, they were rising steadily until the massive protests, when they were frozen.

Btw, I don't believe that the sale of the stadium name has been raised as an issue before. Maybe I'm misremembering, there has been a LOT discussed

I have explained that at great length and in great detail during debates with you previously. It clearly was a waste of time then, so I'm not going to repeat myself now.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I'm only interested in ''pushing a flawed agenda''. And with regard to flaws in my argument, the last two or three times we discussed this on here, all of your points were refuted and you failed to make a counter argument. So you have not yet been unable to back up this claim about flaws in my argument.

This is ridiculous pedantism. I have explained the problem I have - that despite massive revenues at the club and massive profit on a player transfer, we will still need to incur more debt if we want a net spend on transfers. If you are actually ok with that then fine. I am certainly not!

Your misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, of what I was referring to with the term ''credit'' shows that you either don't want to discuss the topic seriously, or are unable to do so.

No you did not. This is the answer you gave:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Muppet
To make it easier for you I don't know if he's telling lies or not for sure but it is my opinion that he's not for the reason's I stated in an earlier post.

ha ha and you accuse me of being pedantic. See the bit in bold, Thats a definite answer, You can use the same terminolgy if you ever feel like answering the question.

I get you now, you want to chose the theoritical issus which you waat to argue about,and dismiss the ones that don't suit you. Thats fine but count me out on that one.

The Club is servising the debt and still functioning well and investing in players , fact. The rest of you debt rant is theoritical, we're not going there.

I'm counter arguing with you now but you keep side stepping the simplest of questions, I'm beginging to think you're on a wind up and it's not worth continuing the discussion.

So the ticket freeze is because of the massive protest, nothing to do with the biggest recession for decades leading to a fall off in demand No?

ziggyman17 wrote: »

What a load of rubbish.. Before the gimps took over there was no debt.. The club did'nt have to worry about paying interest of a huge.. Granted shareholders had to be paid, but that was no were near what the club is paying now in interest alone, never mind paying money off the actual debt, if the gimps never took over, utd would have so much money now, that they would'nt know what to do with it.. Hopefully there is a bycott next season and these parasites get run out of town..

I'm not pro Glazer but hasn't revenue and profits increased year on year under the gimps as you call them?

Good luck with that, theres more of a chance of me supporting liverpool than there is of real united supporters boycotting the club, It was tried and failed to make any significant impact.

Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments