Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 12/13

Nemanja91 · 15-11-2012 12:21AM

SK1979 wrote: »

Was that our new boy scoring for Chile tonight yeh? Anyone got a link to the goal?

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/manchester-united-youngster-angelo-henriquez-scores-first-ever-goal-for-chile-v-serbia/

Mr.Crinklewood · 15-11-2012 12:24AM

Nemanja91 wrote: »

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/manchester-united-youngster-angelo-henriquez-scores-first-ever-goal-for-chile-v-serbia/

I liked his attitude there. Hardly any celebration.he just wanted to get the match back on.

Oregano_State · 15-11-2012 12:30AM

Nemanja91 wrote: »

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/manchester-united-youngster-angelo-henriquez-scores-first-ever-goal-for-chile-v-serbia/

those South American commentators always crack me up. 3-1 at 86 mins, and

"GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooaL"

15-11-2012 01:09AM

Just thought I'd throw in a formation I was thinking of in my head just there.

De Gea is a better keeper than Lindegaard and seems to make at least one amazing save per match. Command of the box will come with age.

Evra ahead of Buttner because the latter is still relatively unproven despite an impressive debut. Evra has improved recently though still not as much as he should.

Smalling has the pace that Ferdinand now lacks, a huge star in the making if you ask me.

Vidic needs no explanation. Talk of injuries ending his career are premature.

Rafael is our best right back by a country mile, it is a shame how many times Jones played there last year (when Raf was fit). Jones needs to be played at CB to develop into the role and mature properly.

Nani gets in ahead of Young because he is still our best winger if you ask me. I do hope this contract shíte is sorted out soon.

Carrick must play as he is the best of what we have in the defence protecting role, I have to admit that I am part of the crowd that think we can do better than him in this position, we need a signing here.

Cleverley gets the nod ahead of Anderson but it's close enough, both have impressed recently and I'd have no problems with either alongside Carrick.

Rooney gets in ahead of Valencia because he can offer more, both in shooting, crossing and passing, despite lacking Valencia's pace. I guess this is the most controversial pick here as Rooney behind the striker offers us better protection in midfield, but Kagawa is superior in the striker supporting role. Also, Valencia is a bit one dimensional for me and lacks the goal threat he should have by now.

Kagawa gets in ahead of Rooney in Rooneys favoured position behind the striker as, mentioned above, he offers more in that position that Rooney IMO. Kagawa's awareness and one touch play are insanely good.

Van Persie needs no explanation.

The thing I like about my selections are that Rooney, Kagawa, Van Persie and Nani can all switch with each other. This is the sort of attack that could really make the oppositions eyes water. So hard to track and so unpredictable, the potential for slick one touch football is through the roof. Every single one of those four know how to finish with style too.

There are some worries I have with my choices here I have to admit. The above selection may leave us prone to be overrun in midfield, but I feel Rooney can tuck in to help this. Kagawa while light can still track back a bit too. This is why I'd understand the argument of Rooney in the supporting striker role to help out Cleverley and Carrick.

That being said, the best form of defence can be a fluid interchangeable front line, and I think this is the way to achieve it.

I'm going to sleep.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-11-2012 01:25AM

Your Airbag wrote: »

Lets not forget our finacnes took a bit hit last year when we dropped out of the CL in the group stages which makes this latest news even more impressive. I think the Glazers are making good headway.

Anyone care to hazard a guess at a date when we will be debt free?

2017.(guess, but educated one)

Seems miles away at minute

Eathrin · 15-11-2012 01:30AM

I don't like seeing strikers played on the wing.
I think Valencia and Nani should always play when fit and on form.

Kagawa/Rooney are interchangeable.
Also Rooney can play in midfield alongside Carrick(Though I'd like if Fergie started looking for a new CDM) in place of Clev/Ando.

Good Defensive picks although Evans should be in serious consideration when fit.

DM_7 · 15-11-2012 08:20AM

I would prefer Rooney to have a starting position on the wing than in the middle of midfield. Carrick and Cleverley (from the post above) provide the solid foundation for the attck to be built on with all the players ahead of them in attack moving around. The full backs will proide width all the time, nani can be swapped from one eing to the other if one side of the opposition can be got at while Rooney and Kagawa can move around to find space.

I like that team as posted.

fergiesfolly · 15-11-2012 10:15AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

2017.(guess, but educated one)

Seems miles away at minute

Don't think they'll ever be debt free under the Glazers. Unless theres rules to prevent them, they'll keep leveraging debt against the club. I'd imagine once the debt gets to the hundred million mark, they'll start to use the clubs equity to borrow for other projects, or pay down debts in other business'. Love to be proved wrong though

The_Kew_Tour · 15-11-2012 10:21AM

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Don't think they'll ever be debt free under the Glazers. Unless theres rules to prevent them, they'll keep leveraging debt against the club. I'd imagine once the debt gets to the hundred million mark, they'll start to use the clubs equity to borrow for other projects, or pay down debts in other business'. Love to be proved wrong though

You could well be right you know and more I think about it the more your post makes bit more sense.

Like I said in past post if we got down the debt to 100million or thereabouts I be happy enough.

Its better now then seeing 800million 5/6 years ago anyway.

On the Glazers: They have been fantastic business people and the way they dont interfere has to be applauded.

If it were not for the debt I think we would have the best owners you could have for the club.

Blatter · 15-11-2012 10:31AM

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Don't think they'll ever be debt free under the Glazers. Unless theres rules to prevent them, they'll keep leveraging debt against the club. I'd imagine once the debt gets to the hundred million mark, they'll start to use the clubs equity to borrow for other projects, or pay down debts in other business'. Love to be proved wrong though

Yep the actual debt figure probably isn't as important (with regards to freeing up money for extra spend) as people like to think it is. So, the Glazers are taking X amount out of the club each year to pay down the debt and the club is still performing at a high level on the field.

If the debt does get wiped out under them, are people naive enough to think that they won't continue to take X amount out of the club for other business purposes, especially if the club is still competitive? It would go against their interests not to do this.

s_carnage · 15-11-2012 10:33AM

Your Airbag wrote: »

Lets not forget our finacnes took a bit hit last year when we dropped out of the CL in the group stages which makes this latest news even more impressive. I think the Glazers are making good headway.

Anyone care to hazard a guess at a date when we will be debt free?

@andersred tweeted yesterday when asked this question and said

Stop all transfer spending and it would still take 5 years+ for #MUFC to become debt free.

He seems fairly reliable with all things financial regarding United so going by that we could be looking past 2020 before we see us totally debt free. We are restructuring some of our debt next year so we should be looking at a big drop in interest rates.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-11-2012 10:36AM

Blatter wrote: »

If the debt does get wiped out under them, are people naive enough to think that they won't continue to take X amount out of the club for other business purposes, especially if the club is still competitive? It would go against their interests not to do this.

eh? of course they will. They are business people. We live in the business world. Thats a given.

Mitch Connor · 15-11-2012 10:40AM

Blatter wrote: »

Yep the actual debt figure probably isn't as important (with regards to freeing up money for extra spend) as people like to think it is. So, the Glazers are taking X amount out of the club each year to pay down the debt and the club is still performing at a high level on the field.

If the debt does get wiped out under them, are people naive enough to think that they won't continue to take X amount out of the club for other business purposes, especially if the club is still competitive? It would go against their interests not to do this.

equally you have people naive enough to think that the debt, and the money that has been taken out of the club hasn't had a negative impact on the club.

We have been successful while under the burden of debt, this is inarguable, but it is possible we could have had a better and more successful team if even half, or a third, of the money that has been spent on debt and related payments, had been used for the benefit of the club itself.

I have no doubt they would take money out of the club for themselves if the debt was gone, but I'd certainly hope it was a lower figure - 550million (maybe more) has been taken out of the club during their ownership to pay for the debt they alone created. There is simply no way of spinning that to be acceptable. If the debt was wiped out tomorrow I would certainly hope they didn't take 550million out of the club over the next 7 years for their own personal use.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-11-2012 10:42AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

equally you have people naive enough to think that the debt, and the money that has been taken out of the club hasn't had a negative impact on the club.

We have been successful while under the burden of debt, this is inarguable, but it is possible we could have had a better and more successful team if even half, or a third, of the money that has been spent on debt and related payments, had been used for the benefit of the club itself.

I have no doubt they would take money out of the club for themselves if the debt was gone, but I'd certainly hope it was a lower figure - 550million (maybe more) has been taken out of the club during their ownership to pay for the debt they alone created. There is simply no way of spinning that to be acceptable. If the debt was wiped out tomorrow I would certainly hope they didn't take 550million out of the club over the next 7 years for their own personal use.

I don't think anybody could think otherwise. How could you spin it.

IvySlayer · 15-11-2012 10:46AM

Once again Fergie is to be applauded for not saying anything against the debt. People have criticized him for not speaking out and I can understand why. Keep the boardroom stuff off the pitch and don't let it ruin squad harmony.

The Glazers would be the perfect owners if they didn't have this debt, however their business plan will see the debt gone in around 7-10 years! Even with the debt, they have provided transfer funds. They are negotiating sponsorship and getting good money from it. They don't speak to the media much, happy letting Gill and Fergie do their job without interference.

Wonder how they'll get on with a new manager though, wonder will they give Ferguson a job with the club.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-11-2012 10:49AM

IvySlayer wrote: »

Once again Fergie is to be applauded for not saying anything against the debt. People have criticized him for not speaking out and I can understand why. Keep the boardroom stuff off the pitch and don't let it ruin squad harmony.

Fergie has played the perfect hand in all this.

For the sake of the club and his dealings in Transfer window he played it well with the media.

Mitch Connor · 15-11-2012 10:50AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I don't think anybody could think otherwise. How could you spin it.

"We have won the league loads - so obviously the Glazers aren't holding us back - they have been good for the club, Fergie and Gill say so. Oh, I don't read all that financial stuff, I just see if we are winning on the pitch, nothing else matters to a normal person".

not a direct quote

Mitch Connor · 15-11-2012 10:54AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Fergie has played the perfect hand in all this.

For the sake of the club and his dealings in Transfer window he played it well with the media.

For me it isn't that Fergie hasn't spoken out against the debt - it is understandable if unpalatable - my issue (and it is the same with others) is that he has actively defended the Glazers and the debt. He hasn't separated the boardroom and the pitch at all, he picked his side and has been most vocal with it in the media.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-11-2012 10:58AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

"We have won the league loads - so obviously the Glazers aren't holding us back - they have been good for the club, Fergie and Gill say so. Oh, I don't read all that financial stuff, I just see if we are winning on the pitch, nothing else matters to a normal person".

not a direct quote

To the fair weather fan or kids they might buy into that.

But your last post was spot on and any fan who has read about or had a interest in the financial implications that the debt has had would say that it certainly has cost us at least some silverware or from us keeping maybe a Ronaldo or buying one. All ifs and buts though.

It only becomes guessing game when you consider how much more we could of won in that time if any more. A extra league or 2? Maybe another CL? Nobody can really say.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-11-2012 11:00AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

For me it isn't that Fergie hasn't spoken out against the debt - it is understandable if unpalatable - my issue (and it is the same with others) is that he has actively defended the Glazers and the debt. He hasn't separated the boardroom and the pitch at all, he picked his side and has been most vocal with it in the media.

But what would you have liked Fergie to say on the matter then?

Mitch Connor · 15-11-2012 11:02AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

But what would you have liked Fergie to say on the matter then?

He had three options:

1. Debt can't be good for the club, but we are managing.
2. There is no issue, the Glazers are great owners and the debt isn't a problem.
3. I'm not going to discuss it.

He chose the second option, and I wish he hadn't.

IvySlayer · 15-11-2012 11:04AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

For me it isn't that Fergie hasn't spoken out against the debt - it is understandable if unpalatable - my issue (and it is the same with others) is that he has actively defended the Glazers and the debt. He hasn't separated the boardroom and the pitch at all, he picked his side and has been most vocal with it in the media.

If Fergie gave a little hint he was unhappy with the board then the media will go to town.

He says it's not affecting the team, is he wrong about that?

Mitch Connor · 15-11-2012 11:05AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It only becomes guessing game when you consider how much more we could of won in that time if any more. A extra league or 2? Maybe another CL? Nobody can really say.

Indeed - even with the extra cash an extra league or two would be almost complete dominence of the PL and the CL would still be a bit hit or miss in terms of winning it. I do think we could have had a far better chance in the CL than we showed - our performances have regressed since winning it in 08. Even our final appearance in 10 owed a lot, imo, to a very favourable draw through to the final.

Mitch Connor · 15-11-2012 11:09AM

IvySlayer wrote: »

He says it's not affecting the team, is he wrong about that?

I think he is, yes. I don't see how 550million, generated by the club but taken out of the club and not used for any positive action on the club, can not have affected the team.

He says we can't compete with Chelsea/City/Real/Barcelona in the transfer market - the reason we can't is because half a billion has been spent on debt and not Manchester United.

Maximus Alexander · 15-11-2012 11:11AM

Do you not think that, no matter who owned the club, a good chunk if not all of that money would have been taken out as dividends anyway?

Unless of course it was owned by supporters.

IvySlayer · 15-11-2012 11:12AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think he is, yes. I don't see how 550million, generated by the club but taken out of the club and not used for any positive action on the club, can not have affected the team.

He says we can't compete with Chelsea/City/Real/Barcelona in the transfer market - the reason we can't is because half a billion has been spent on debt and not Manchester United.

Our worst nightmare is happening right now. A major rival having billionaires backing them.

And yet even with this debt we lost the league on goal difference.

Can't compete in the transfer market? Robin Van Persie.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-11-2012 11:14AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He had three options:

1. Debt can't be good for the club, but we are managing.
2. There is no issue, the Glazers are great owners and the debt isn't a problem.
3. I'm not going to discuss it.

He chose the second option, and I wish he hadn't.

I am taking it then you would of been happy with option 1 and 3. Fair enough and I see the point you make.

I honestly think deep down Fergie is not happy with the debt. Full stop.

But I honestly think he got it spot on with the media. You have to remember the first time he publicly came out with his support of Glazers was around 2006/07. This was a time when Chelsea were the best team in England.
We were struggling to finish in Top 2 and from United point of view that was mini crisis and we also failed to get out of a Group in Europe.

So why then publicly come out and slate the Glazers and the debt and then all of sudden you have the media in heaven, morale in dressing room on edge and for fans alike?

Just would of been plain stupid. Saying nothing at all would of been just as bad as lambasting the Glazers and media would of spinned that too that all is not well.

After what he initially said he could never go back on his word. I am personally glad he hasnt and the results over the last few years show that.

Fergie played a blinder here and i think people seem unaware of it.

Blatter · 15-11-2012 11:14AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think he is, yes. I don't see how 550million, generated by the club but taken out of the club and not used for any positive action on the club, can not have affected the team.

He says we can't compete with Chelsea/City/Real/Barcelona in the transfer market - the reason we can't is because half a billion has been spent on debt and not Manchester United.

If the debt wasn't there, would we try to compete in the same manner as those clubs though? I know we could if we wanted to but I'm not sure if our business would be all that different to what it is now. Maybe I'm wide of the mark on that and we would, I just don't know.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't Bayern Munich have the capabilities to behave like those clubs mentioned yet they have a wage bill/transfer policy more similar to ourselves?

Blatter · 15-11-2012 11:18AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He had three options:

1. Debt can't be good for the club, but we are managing.
2. There is no issue, the Glazers are great owners and the debt isn't a problem.
3. I'm not going to discuss it.

He chose the second option, and I wish he hadn't.

The problem is 3. would just be a thinly veiled 1. and would serve to create more uncertainty around the club and/or tension between himself and the owners, imo.

I firmly believe that Fergie's public stance, regardless of his private one, is best for the club.

Mitch Connor · 15-11-2012 11:22AM

IvySlayer wrote: »

Our worst nightmare is happening right now. A major rival having billionaires backing them.

And yet even with this debt we lost the league on goal difference.

Can't compete in the transfer market? Robin Van Persie.

Fergie says we can't compete in the transfer market. One player, whose only other options appeared to be Juve and City, doesn't prove him utterly incorrect.

We lost out on Hazard, and Lucas - he has admitted wanting Silva and Toure, we lost out on Nasri. I'm sure there are others too.

I'm not saying we would have a team of all stars if not for the debt - good governance would have stopped that as it is unlikely we would have allowed our wages structure (in terms of percetage of turnover) to be wildly breached - but there is a good chance we'd have signed a couple of the big name players we were in for, if the debt wasn't constraining our financial clout.

Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 12/13

Comments