Bruno Fernandes | Signed

Status
Not open for further replies.
EireRed_GS said:
We've splashed out ridiculous money under Glazers aswell. It's just that the majority of ones we've threw massive money at under Ed has been failures. Lukaku/ Sanchez / Pogba / DiMaria come to mind

I know we didnt pay a fee for Sanchez, but them mad wages make up for it
Click to expand...
For sure.

It speaks volumes that the 'record breaking signings' under the Glazers and Ed's stewardship have been such monumental failures.

Pogba - flatters to deceive, will presumably be off this summer
Di Maria - flopped and sold
Shaw - never been a regular starter, currently displaced by a teenage youth product
Lukaku - 'flopped' and sold
Sanchez - flopped and sold
Martial - inconsistent, questionable attitude and frequently linked to moves away
Mata - arguably been a success but always looked a shadow of his Chelsea best

The jury is still out on AWB and Maguire, but even if they both kick on and hopefully prove to be successes here for years, it's still an unbelievably poor record for high profile high cost recruits in the past few years.
 
EireRed_GS said:
We've splashed out ridiculous money under Glazers aswell. It's just that the majority of ones we've threw massive money at under Ed has been failures. Lukaku/ Sanchez / Pogba / DiMaria come to mind

I know we didnt pay a fee for Sanchez, but them mad wages make up for it
Click to expand...
Along with all the £30m ish signings which didn’t work: Shaw, Fellaini, Depay, Bailly, Schneiderlin, Mkhitaryan, could also probably class Matic in there for £40m.

Massive wages also went on Schweinsteiger and Falcao along with Rooney’s bumper contract all of which were of little value.
 
When our signings don't work out, its not vindication for the board because they actually provided the money.

Its a sign of incompetence in realizing the club structure is wrong and our money needs to be protected by having football people making football decisions.
 
Lebowski said:
Whether it's impressive or not is subjective, but what's your underlying point? From your initial post I took it to be that we transitioned from a period of relative frugality to profligate spending under the Glazers, which I don't think is backed up by the facts.

We spent vast amounts more than any other side in the league (and virtually every club in the world besides a couple of Serie A clubs who were swimming in cash) during the 80s, 90s and early 00s.

In terms of domestic financial hegemony, consider that we held the domestic transfer record between 81-96, then 01-06. That's 20 out of 25 years mostly filled with unparalleled domestic success.

Nobody would deny that the Glazers have spent money like drunken sailors for the last 8 years in a desperate attempt to recover lost ground, but let's not pretend that we weren't throwing our financial muscle around as much (if not more), before they had ever heard of Manchester United.
Click to expand...

No my intial post was about the previous PLC, not the Glazers, it of course happened because we were the richest club in England but we didn't had the reputation to beat records regularly. But if you want to compare with the last 15 years just have a look at these lists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_the_British_football_transfer_fee_record

I believe that these are facts that backs the point that I didn't make. And our unparalleled success was down to having the best manager in the world.
 
JPRouve said:
United doesn't have an history of making record breaking signings on a regular basis and it used to have a strict wage structure which prevented the club from getting the likes of Batistuta.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that before Woodward's time? Because with Woody we broke wage records for fecking Alexis Sanchez...

If Mourinho really pushed for that one he should have been fired just for that, tbf
 
NewGlory said:
They didn't just think that. Woodward outright told them and the rest of the shareholders, as recently as in 2018, that it didnt matter if we were shit team with shit performance:

"During United's quarterly conference call with shareholders, Woodward was asked if the improved performance in the Premier League this season had played a part in another bumper set of financial numbers for the world's richest club.

Woodward replied: "Playing performance doesn't really have a meaningful impact on what we can do on the commercial side of the business."

source: https://www.espn.com/soccer/manches...-make-money-regardless-of-results-ed-woodward

If I were a significant United shareholder I would campaign for his removal for saying such idiotic thing, but I am not. So it's up to the shareholders to decide whether a moron with such dumb views is taking good care of their money or not. The fact is: we have been declining in the Deloitte index of richest football clubs and not only we are not the richest worldwide anymore (Barca and Real overtook us) but we are well on our way to losing #1 status even in EPL, while Liverpool and City are growing and we are shrinking. So how about him financial genius Woodward?
Click to expand...
Good find on the quote!
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
This is probably the easiest year to get Top 4 if we make the right signings but we are going to be stupid as usual and wait for the "right" targets in summer who won't join because we don't have CL.
Click to expand...
100%
 
NewGlory said:
Wasn't that before Woodward's time? Because with Woody we broke wage records for fecking Alexis Sanchez...

If Mourinho really pushed for that one he should have been fired just for that, tbf
Click to expand...

The previous PLC was in the 90s, so yes it's before Woodward's time.
 
JPRouve said:
No my intial post was about the previous PLC, not the Glazers, it of course happened because we were the richest club in England but we didn't had the reputation to beat records regularly. But if you want to compare with the last 15 years just have a look at these lists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_the_British_football_transfer_fee_record

I believe that these are facts that backs the point that I didn't make. And our unparalleled success was down to having the best manager in the world.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's what I mean- your initial point, as I understand it, was that pre-Glazer we were frugal, and post-Glazer we have let loose and thrown money around.

Again I don't think that's remotely true because of our hegemonic spending record pre-Glazer, which surpasses the ambition and regularity of anything witnessed post-takeover aside from perhaps the last few years when they have been desperately trying to halt the total decline of the club at a time when transfer fees have gone completely bananas.
 
NewGlory said:
They didn't just think that. Woodward outright told them and the rest of the shareholders, as recently as in 2018, that it didnt matter if we were shit team with shit performance:

"During United's quarterly conference call with shareholders, Woodward was asked if the improved performance in the Premier League this season had played a part in another bumper set of financial numbers for the world's richest club.

Woodward replied: "Playing performance doesn't really have a meaningful impact on what we can do on the commercial side of the business."

source: https://www.espn.com/soccer/manches...-make-money-regardless-of-results-ed-woodward

If I were a significant United shareholder I would campaign for his removal for saying such idiotic thing, but I am not. So it's up to the shareholders to decide whether a moron with such dumb views is taking good care of their money or not. The fact is: we have been declining in the Deloitte index of richest football clubs and not only we are not the richest worldwide anymore (Barca and Real overtook us) but we are well on our way to losing #1 status even in EPL, while Liverpool and City are growing and we are shrinking. So how about him financial genius Woodward?
Click to expand...

That's not what the quote was about, how many times will people mention that completely out of context. He was asked about whether the club expected to have new sponsorship deals due to the CL qualification that year.
 
kafta said:
When our signings don't work out, its not vindication for the board because they actually provided the money.

Its a sign of incompetence in realizing the club structure is wrong and our money needs to be protected by having football people making football decisions.
Click to expand...

Exactly but also it's not like we didn't sell any of these flops either. Looking at only expenditure is an odd way to look at our transfer business other than concluding they're willing to pay out x at any one time, some of those transfers they may have only funded due to the income from selling previous flops.
 
JPRouve said:
That's not what the quote was about, how many times will people mention that completely out of context. He was asked about whether the club expected to have new sponsorship deals due to the CL qualification that year.
Click to expand...
What he was asked and what he answered are all there in the quotes, so there is no context missing. I don't agree with your narrow interpretation.
 
Lebowski said:
Sorry, that's what I mean- your initial point, as I understand it, was that pre-Glazer we were frugal, and post-Glazer we have let loose and thrown money around.

Again I don't think that's remotely true because of our hegemonic spending record pre-Glazer, which surpasses the ambition and regularity of anything witnessed post-takeover aside from perhaps the last few years when they have been desperately trying to halt the total decline of the club at a time when transfer fees have gone completely bananas.
Click to expand...

Again I didn't make a comparison in my intial post, I simply responded to someone who said that we would beat records regularly under the previous PLC. I simply answered that it wasn't the case and that we had a strict wage structure which saw us miss on players. How you interpret it the way you did is a mystery.
 
JPRouve said:
Again I didn't make a comparison in my intial post, I simply responded to someone who said that we would beat records regularly under the previous PLC. I simply answered that it wasn't the case and that we had a strict wage structure which saw us miss on players. How you interpret it the way you did is a mystery.
Click to expand...

Well I mean, we did break records under the PLC regularly, so the original poster was correct.

That is what I initially pointed out, and you replied saying that the Glazers broke more records, which is why I assumed you were making a comparison.

We spent loads under the PLC, and we've recently spent astronomical sums under the Glazers. The more interesting question (to me at least), was why it took an unprecedented fall from grace and explosion of global transfer fees for the Glazers to loosen the purse strings and allow the club to spend. But I think the answer to that starts with 'P' and ends in 'IK loans'.
 
Smores said:
Exactly but also it's not like we didn't sell any of these flops either. Looking at only expenditure is an odd way to look at our transfer business other than concluding they're willing to pay out x at any one time, some of those transfers they may have only funded due to the income from selling previous flops.
Click to expand...

Yes we are buying and selling at a slight loss, but the main issue is that in the meantime the club stagnates while others improve, so technically we would be declining. So its not surprise we are struggling to take fourth spot. Also, this summer we let two of our flops without replacing them.
 
NewGlory said:
Wasn't that before Woodward's time? Because with Woody we broke wage records for fecking Alexis Sanchez...

If Mourinho really pushed for that one he should have been fired just for that, tbf
Click to expand...

United and Ferguson, refused back in the day to sign the other Ronaldo (Brazillian) because they refused to give him £35k a week wages!

There are times, United made some mistakes past and present, sadly however, we seem to be buying sub average players on crazy high wages thesedays.
 
Woodward said we can work on one transfer at the time. So he will "work" on Bruno transfer until 31.01. and say: Sorry, it did not work out as we wanted. No new players..
I'm so happy. Happy New year.
 
Bruno8 said:
Is this thread still about Bruno Fernandes?
Click to expand...

Username checks out

78476a4ee7a8b5b1caf4949491bff335.jpg
 
Lebowski said:
Well I mean, we did break records under the PLC regularly, so the original poster was correct.

That is what I initially pointed out, and you replied saying that the Glazers broke more records, which is why I assumed you were making a comparison.

We spent loads under the PLC, and we've recently spent astronomical sums under the Glazers. The more interesting question (to me at least), was why it took an unprecedented fall from grace and explosion of global transfer fees for the Glazers to loosen the purse strings and allow the club to spend. But I think the answer to that starts with 'P' and ends in 'IK loans'.
Click to expand...

We broke records but I wouldn't consider it regular, not when we basically spent 10 years in the 90s with one british record but maybe I'm being too selective. And I mentioned the Glazers because you did, I don't think that there is a difference between the previous PLC, which isn't surprising since they were part of it, the main difference is that we got rid of the wage structure that prevented us from signing some players.

And I don't know if it's an interesting question, we kept spending relatively big with the likes of Hargreaves, Carrick, Nani, Anderson, Berbatov who were expensive players at the time, what we spent on Van Persie was important when you consider that he was in the last year of his contract. The main thing for me is that we didn't had a lot of room for new players until 2009-2010, we really messed up with the Ronaldo money.
 
NewGlory said:
What he was asked and what he answered are all there in the quotes, so there is no context missing. I don't agree with your narrow interpretation.
Click to expand...

Of course there is context missing, he was asked about whether they expected potential sponsorship based on one season's performances. You on the other hand decided to turn it into he said that it doesn't matter if we are shit which isn't what he said or what he was asked about.
 
Until the club has hit the reset button on removing the overpaid players don’t expect much. They clearly want to reduce that wage bill by a considerable amount.

the club has had its fingers burnt on given huge/stupid wages out. They’ll be making sure that there’s more of a wage cap/ structure to it in the coming years.
 
RyRy11 said:
Just look at how our transfer pan out and it’s a pretty easy conclusion to draw.
Click to expand...

But we have regularly signed and sold a lot of players in the last 7 years, particularly under LVG and early with Mourinho. So I don't really understand how people believe that, what is the difference since the press made that claim?
 
JPRouve said:
But we have regularly signed and sold a lot of players in the last 7 years, particularly under LVG and early with Mourinho. So I don't really understand how people believe that, what is the difference since the press made that claim?
Click to expand...
It's negative, therefore it's unequivocally true. There's enough things wrong with our club without the need to make more up.
 
ivaldo said:
It's negative, therefore it's unequivocally true. There's enough things wrong with our club without the need to make more up.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't get it, we're obviously in a mess, there's enough facts to be miserable about, without feeling the need to make shite up and create scenarios to get angry over. It's weird.
 
ivaldo said:
It's negative, therefore it's unequivocally true. There's enough things wrong with our club without the need to make more up.
Click to expand...

It seems to be the only reason. Same with some people claiming that all our transfers dealings take more time than usual. When we regularly sign players early and like everyone sometimes struggle on bigger transfers.
 
choccy77 said:
United and Ferguson, refused back in the day to sign the other Ronaldo (Brazillian) because they refused to give him £35k a week wages!

There are times, United made some mistakes past and present, sadly however, we seem to be buying sub average players on crazy high wages thesedays.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I would have less issue with us being fiscally conservative, if we were able to do what Leicester seems to be doing en masse: finding talents like Mahrez, Kante, Maguire, Vardy etc. for peanuts and turning them into world-class in matter of 1-2 years. But we haven’t done anything like that in a decade, and we are also unwilling to pay for already established stars. Can’t be both - we just end up with poor squad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.