Sometimes I just love, love, love Red Cafe...

[IBlue]

The top and bottom of all this is that 5 years ago City would be the club buying Smalling and Hernandez and Utd would have bought Boateng and Balotelli, times have changed. Get over it

 

[stony]

We spent £7m on a snap-judgement buy, a player who's wholly unproven, and yet we're skint? It doesn't make sense to me. If we're that low on money we wouldn't throw it about that freely, we'd minimise the risk as much as possible. We'd go for solid, reliable signings. Look at Liverpool, for example.

Do honestly beleive that your club is not being financially hamstrung by the Glazers debt?

 

[squirtyflower]

The top and bottom of all this is that 5 years ago City would be the club buying Smalling and Hernandez and Utd would have bought Boateng and Balotelli, times have changed. Get over it

but when you put it into perspective
boateng and a johnson cost the same amount as smalling and bebe

i wonder who made the kamikaze buys out of those?

 

[woolleyback blue]

Interesting reading another utd supporter desperately peddling the official line.

I'd like to put a couple of questions.

Would the utd of 3/4 yrs ago have blown the lead twice against a club of the level of Fulham.

Scholes has started the season well but do you seriously think he'll last the whole season in that form or even last the whole season at his age?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

it's what I don't get.

When United used to have money they bought Rooney, Van Nistelrooy, Veron, Ferdinand, Berbatov etc. etc.

Now they aren't, despite claiming they've still got Ronaldo's money lying around, I mean they could have bought Villa, Silva, Ozil and Boateng practically with that money, give or take half a million quid, so the argument doesn't stack up.

Dodgy things are going on at Old Trafford, that's the only clear thing.

 

[Brwned]

We spent £7m on a snap-judgement buy, a player who's wholly unproven, and yet we're skint? It doesn't make sense to me. If we're that low on money we wouldn't throw it about that freely, we'd minimise the risk as much as possible. We'd go for solid, reliable signings. Look at Liverpool, for example.

Do honestly beleive that your club is not being financially hamstrung by the Glazers debt?

I think I'd have to check myself in to a mental hospital if so.

No, all I'm saying is that we're not as in the dumps as some are saying. IF we were we wouldn't spend £7m on someone we know almost nothing about, would you not agree?

Can you see any logic to us spending money we desperately need to save on a hugely risky signing? I can't. That to me means we don't desperately need to keep it, we've got some in reserve.

Nowhere near as much as before, and that's depressing, but it's not as bad as has been suggested.

would you like me to explain it with the aid of pictures? if you read my post again you'll see that i said united have to sell to buy. they've broken marginally above even on this summer's comings & goings. yes, they're financially fucked & yes, they've paid £7.4 million on a player they could have got for almost nothing a few weeks before. the money was funded from the sale of tosic (another wonder kid that flopped) and/or foster. for a club that's financially fucked that's a bit profligate to say the least. he cost more than adam johnson ffs. does that make sense now?

the problem many united fans have is that ferguson can do no wrong no matter what cock ups he makes or how much bollocks he speaks. his fuck ups in the transfer market are the stuff of legend. tosic (as above),
veron, taibi, djemba djemba, kleberson, etc etc. plus his personal feud with mcmanus & magnier over rock of gibraltar directly - yes directly - led to the takover by the glazers whom he consistently & publicly backs to the hilt.

That's not the point I was making though.

Right, let's look at it this way - we've made £14m from player sales, and we're in need of a new player, and we're low on cash otherwise, what do you do? You spend that money on someone reliable, on someone you know who can come in and do a job, because if they fail you have no money to fix the problem you've caused by taking a risk.

We didn't do that, and I'm asking why.<br /><br />-- Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:27 pm --<br /><br />

Interesting reading another utd supporter desperately peddling the official line.

I'd like to put a couple of questions.

Would the utd of 3/4 yrs ago have blown the lead twice against a club of the level of Fulham.

Scholes has started the season well but do you seriously think he'll last the whole season in that form or even last the whole season at his age?

You do realise that two years ago we won the league, got the the CL final, and yet lost to Fulham at their ground?

And no, Scholes can't do it all. But then in 07/08 he was used relatively sparingly - he started less games than last year - and we won the double, so I don't think it's as if we can't get by without him. And no, I'm not suggesting we're going to win the double, and yes, I do realise Ronaldo and Tevez aren't there any more.

 

[metalblue]

No, all I'm saying is that we're not as in the dumps as some are saying. IF we were we wouldn't spend £7m on someone we know almost nothing about, would you not agree?

Can you see any logic to us spending money we desperately need to save on a hugely risky signing? I can't. That to me means we don't desperately need to keep it, we've got some in reserve.

Nowhere near as much as before, and that's depressing, but it's not as bad as has been suggested.

You're arguement is seemingly based on the premise that if you desperately needed £7m to pay the electricity bill you wouldn't have spent it on this lad, that is difficult to argue with but you should also acknowledge that the £7m will likely be paid over the term of his contract so you can "invest" £7m in this lad and even if he is a total waste of cash you will (because he has played for you lot) likely get the vast amount of that back - ultimately that just becomes a play on cashflow.

i've never had the f**ked-o-meter at "totally" it has always been sitting somewhere around "fairly" but the cupboard is pretty bare (for a variety of reasons) and you need something to change for you to get back to competing at anything like the top-end of the transfer market which is where you are used to operating not on freebies and nobodies.

 

[peacefrog]

"we're not as in the dumps as some are saying. IF we were we wouldn't spend £7m on someone we know almost nothing about, would you not agree"?

I wouldn't agree. What do you get for 7mill these days? Unless you get someone coming to the end of a contract, not much. Probably only someone who'd struggle to get in the united side anyway, and even less likely someone who would actually improve the team. No, your best chance is going for a real outside bet, but where the payoff is huge. So even though the chances are slim and the odds are against it, it was the only way slur alex was ever gonna get anything worth having for his 7million gold pieces.

But even having said all that, I still don't understand why old streaky didn't pick up Bébé for zilch 7 weeks previous when he was available for diddly. And don't tell me nobody realise at the time because that's a bunch of big fat hairy bollocks.

 

[Brwned]

No, all I'm saying is that we're not as in the dumps as some are saying. IF we were we wouldn't spend £7m on someone we know almost nothing about, would you not agree?

Can you see any logic to us spending money we desperately need to save on a hugely risky signing? I can't. That to me means we don't desperately need to keep it, we've got some in reserve.

Nowhere near as much as before, and that's depressing, but it's not as bad as has been suggested.

You're arguement is seemingly based on the premise that if you desperately needed £7m to pay the electricity bill you wouldn't have spent it on this lad, that is difficult to argue with but you should also acknowledge that the £7m will likely be paid over the term of his contract so you can "invest" £7m in this lad and even if he is a total waste of cash you will (because he has played for you lot) likely get the vast amount of that back - ultimately that just becomes a play on cashflow.

i've never had the f**ked-o-meter at "totally" it has always been sitting somewhere around "fairly" but the cupboard is pretty bare (for a variety of reasons) and you need something to change for you to get back to competing at anything like the top-end of the transfer market which is where you are used to operating not on freebies and nobodies.

I'd agree with pretty much all of that - although I still don't fully understand our buying strategy now it does seem that to an extent we're buying with a view to selling in the future. And with us making at least £1m profit on Tosic despite him not starting one game, for example, it's evidently a good business plan. It's just not the way we do things though. It's mildly depressing. I like to avoid problems though so I pretend it doesn't exist a lot of the time. It's who I am.

"we're not as in the dumps as some are saying. IF we were we wouldn't spend £7m on someone we know almost nothing about, would you not agree"?

I wouldn't agree. What do you get for 7mill these days? Unless you get someone coming to the end of a contract, not much. Probably only someone who'd struggle to get in the united side anyway, and even less likely someone who would actually improve the team. No, your best chance is going for a real outside bet, but where the payoff is huge. So even though the chances are slim and the odds are against it, it was the only way slur alex was ever gonna get anything worth having for his 7million gold pieces.

But even having said all that, I still don't understand why old streaky didn't pick up Bébé for zilch 7 weeks previous when he was available for diddly. And don't tell me nobody realise at the time because that's a bunch of big fat hairy bollocks.

While that is all true, what I mean is that if we need a player and we don't have money to spare, don't spend it on Diouf, Hernandez, Smalling and Bebe. None of those signings are necessities, they're luxuries. You don't waste money on luxuries if you don't have money to spare. So, instead of buying those 4 we could have saved the money and had £30m to spend on a big name.

The whole transfer is probably the most bizarre ones we've had under Sir Alex. I don't think any of it makes sense, so I've given up trying to make sense of it. It is intriguing and exciting in some ways though, how often do you see a player brought into your club that you genuinely know nothing about? Doesn't happen any more. Again, that's the eternal optimist in me saying that though, I'm looking at the positives of it. It could easily blow up in our faces with him being sold on for 10x less, or something.

 

[m27]

You're arguement is seemingly based on the premise that if you desperately needed £7m to pay the electricity bill you wouldn't have spent it on this lad, that is difficult to argue with but you should also acknowledge that the £7m will likely be paid over the term of his contract so you can "invest" £7m in this lad and even if he is a total waste of cash you will (because he has played for you lot) likely get the vast amount of that back - ultimately that just becomes a play on cashflow.

i've never had the f**ked-o-meter at "totally" it has always been sitting somewhere around "fairly" but the cupboard is pretty bare (for a variety of reasons) and you need something to change for you to get back to competing at anything like the top-end of the transfer market which is where you are used to operating not on freebies and nobodies.

I'd agree with pretty much all of that - although I still don't fully understand our buying strategy now it does seem that to an extent we're buying with a view to selling in the future. And with us making at least £1m profit on Tosic despite him not starting one game, for example, it's evidently a good business plan. It's just not the way we do things though. It's mildly depressing. I like to avoid problems though so I pretend it doesn't exist a lot of the time. It's who I am.

I wouldn't agree. What do you get for 7mill these days? Unless you get someone coming to the end of a contract, not much. Probably only someone who'd struggle to get in the united side anyway, and even less likely someone who would actually improve the team. No, your best chance is going for a real outside bet, but where the payoff is huge. So even though the chances are slim and the odds are against it, it was the only way slur alex was ever gonna get anything worth having for his 7million gold pieces.

But even having said all that, I still don't understand why old streaky didn't pick up Bébé for zilch 7 weeks previous when he was available for diddly. And don't tell me nobody realise at the time because that's a bunch of big fat hairy bollocks.

While that is all true, what I mean is that if we need a player and we don't have money to spare, don't spend it on Diouf, Hernandez, Smalling and Bebe. None of those signings are necessities, they're luxuries. You don't waste money on luxuries if you don't have money to spare. So, instead of buying those 4 we could have saved the money and had £30m to spend on a big name.

The whole transfer is probably the most bizarre ones we've had under Sir Alex. I don't think any of it makes sense, so I've given up trying to make sense of it. It is intriguing and exciting in some ways though, how often do you see a player brought into your club that you genuinely know nothing about? Doesn't happen any more. Again, that's the eternal optimist in me saying that though, I'm looking at the positives of it. It could easily blow up in our faces with him being sold on for 10x less, or something.

You've clearly forgotten who you are talking to.

During the dark days we brought on players as subs I knew nothing about nevermind bought.

"Who did he say? Barry Conlon? Who the fuck's that??"