You can sort of understand it from Burnleys point of view, new to the PL so wanting as many games as possible to try and adapt to the pace and performance level required.
But for a club of united's supposed stature to feel the need to play a behind closed doors friendly with the season underway suggests their manager has a certain level of desperation, panic and concern about how the team are performing.
If Forest dick them (they won't, by the way), Poundland better have the removal company on speed dial.Kompany had Burnley back well early, they should be a lot sharper than other teams. United played a lot of friendlies this summer including both Saturday and Sunday when City played the charity shield. Something must be concerning Pound Shop Pep, getting pumped 3 nil off Burnley will be giving him some sleepless nights. They don’t get a result against Notts Forest this weekend it could get interesting.
They’ll win the league game their as no VAR in the friendly to help them out ..Why would two teams play a training game against someone they're going to be playing in a competitive game soon?
They will, but the rags will still get a shitty win, like against Wolves.If Forest dick them (they won't, by the way), Poundland better have the removal company on speed dial.
This seems to be the way with them for the last few seasons.One of my mates txt me saying the rags had 6 1st team players playing, burnley had 72% possession & should’ve won 6 or 7 with the chances they missed! oh how the “mighty” have fallen!! :)
They just can’t shift him. And I suppose you can't blame him. Engaging devil's advocate mode here; if a player has a legally binding contract for, say, 100k a week (5.2m a year), with two years left on the deal, and the club wants to sell him; why should he settle for half that figure? It's not his choice to go, after all.
Now, I understand that in a lot of these cases, a compromise is usually reached between the player and his employer. But it seems Harold is, like the lady, not for turning.