Danny Welbeck | Arsenal player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pogue Mahone said:
A less charitable interpretation would be that Woodward had been given strict instructions to recoup as much of our outrageous spending spree as possible by selling a list of players identified as "deadwood" before the transfer window closed. When he found himself unable to seal permanent deals for Hernandez, Cleverley, Nani, Fellaini and Anderson he was forced to sell Welbeck for below the market rate.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is, we've just provided Arsenal with the final part of the most terrifyingly quick counter-attacking trio in the league for the bargain price of 16 million quid. I almost can't believe it, but then I realise I live in a world where James Milner has 50 England caps and even the most unbelievable things start to make sense again.
 
finneh said:
The development in terms of Danny Welbeck as a centre forward has pretty much stalled since his Sunderland spell 4 years ago. You could argue his decision making is better outside the box, as well as his improved physical attributes, but certainly many other facets of his game which are vital to a centre forward, such as composure, finishing etc haven't really come along. Which is obvious as his game time has been severely restricted (to probably around 10-20% of the minutes you'd want him to be playing in his preferred position). I vaguely remember there was a reported offer from Bruce at Sunderland around £12-14m 4 years ago after his loan spell, but that we didn't want to let him go?

I'd love to see a Danny Welbeck who stayed at Sunderland another season, before going to Everton for 2 seasons. You could bet that even if we did let him go if he wasn't quite good enough, it would have been for a £26m fee ala Lukaku (as well as probably £15m in loan fees and c.£10m in wages paid). If we didn't we'd have a much more complete centre forward with well over 100 full games in his natural position coming back into the squad to compete with Rooney/RVP.

Chelsea have it right in respect of these vital positions. They let their player's learn their trade, make their mistakes and show if they have what it takes to make the grade elsewhere before either getting a good fee for them or bringing them back into the squad as top class players (see Courtois & Lukaku).
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. There's stats that have been posted ad infinitum through this thread showing that his chance conversion rate (when played centrally) last season was better than any other striker in our squad. There's no chance this was true a few years back, so that's clearly an aspect of his game which has improved.

I also disagree that the Chelsea model is somehow radically different from ours, with better outcomes. Both clubs loan out players to develop them. If anything, United have a better record with a much higher number of players that have been sent out on loan, then come back to make a useful contribution to winning trophies. Welbeck fell into this category, even though he has since left. Ditto Cleverley and Evans (not to mention former greats like David Beckham) Chelsea have singularly failed to match this right up until this season, with Courtois and Lukaku, both of whom seem to be really exceptional talents. The risk of sending young players out on loan is that they will be marginalised by managers who would rather develop their own players or struggle to impose themselves at a club that is floundering. If the player concerned really is exceptionally advanced as a footballer for his age, then this is less of a risk. For relatively late developers like Danny they're no more likely to get the game time they need on loan than they would if they stayed put. Obviously, he seems to have turned the corner now and probably could have had a very succesful loan this season. It's quite possible that he would have, if the club wasn't intent on balancing the books and/or the player himself wasn't willing to go out on loan.
 
van Persie coming definitely stalled his development. I mean it automatically meant his chances to start as a number 9 were reduced and therefore I don't think he's progressed like we would have hoped, at least productively in terms of goals and assists. The season van Persie came he scored 1 goal in the league. But who knows how many he would have scored playing up front that season if we didn't sign van Persie?

He deserves his chance up top. Last season we had that spell when van Persie + Rooney got injured and he started up top and was on a little scoring streak. Got about 7 in 8 at one point. I think he will score goals at Arsenal though, I can't deny that. I think seeing what happened when Sturridge moved to Liverpool would have played a big part in Welbeck wanting to leave. I don't hate him for that but still disappointed. Saying all this, Welbeck still should have scored more goals when he played outwide, it still was not good enough, but you could see the good player in him.

In a dream world he would score goals for Arsenal (yet Arsenal finish behind us) then when Falcao/Rooney/van Persie are over the hill he would come back and play for us.
 
Wow this thread has more posts than the Falcao thread, in what day in age are we living?

I have respect for Welbeck in terms of he is an ex red and also wish him well in his future but thats where it ends, hes no longer our player. Wenger can afford to give him time to develope into the wc fwd he has hidden inside somewhere (according to a few in here), Utd simply couldnt.
 
Last edited:
golden_blunder said:
according to David McDonnell @ The Daily Mirror

Welbeck stats

United starts 53 / goals 20
England starts 28 / goals 10
Click to expand...

That is decent bordering on excellent, especially if you consider that many of those starts have not been as a striker.
 
golden_blunder said:
according to David McDonnell @ The Daily Mirror

Welbeck stats

United starts 53 / goals 20
England starts 28 / goals 10
Click to expand...

That seems to be including all goals though, not just goals from starts. Surely it should only include goals in those 53 games? Unless Welbeck has never once scored in 38 sub appearances and the stat is in fact true? Either way he played as a winger a lot or in specialist roles so it's probably a bit of a pointless endeavour.

Edit: From a quick bit of rough research I make out around 4 or 5 goals from sub appearances so the stat is more like United starts 53/ goals 15(maybe 16). Including sub appearances for goals but not for appearances is misleading otherwise. That's just for league games btw.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Not bad but that's just career totals.

No doubt a season by season breakdown would show an upward trend.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. Considering he scored only 2 goals the season before last the trend would be inconsistent at best. Not going in a particular direction definitively.
 
finneh said:
We don't have the time to afford them consistent, guaranteed game time in their preferred position, which is really the only way to develop a player from a youngster to a World Class player. Playing Welbeck instead of RVP/Rooney these last 4 years would have cost us points. These points could well have prevented us from winning trophies.
Click to expand...

By the same token then you might as well loan out or get rid of Januzaj & Wilson as well because they might cost you points. Fergie got your club to where it is by thinking long term not just taking the easy simple solution.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Not bad but that's just career totals.

No doubt a season by season breakdown would show an upward trend.
Click to expand...

7 of Welbeck's 16 goals from starts came in 11/12 and 7 from starts in 13/14. So no, not an upward trend just a huge lull in 12/13. The numbers are too low to draw any meaningful conclusions anyway. I think there's no doubt he is a better player now than he has ever been. Shame to sell him but not the end of the world.
 
I hope he does well for Arsenal and England but I suspect he will never quite get to the level that a team competing for the PL/CL needs as it's main striker. His stats for England (quoted above) look good but international football is filled with some dreadful sides compared to club level. In fact, given the dross in England's qualifying group for the next euros (and euros to come), I can see Danny climbing up the all time England list fairly quickly.
 
OK so that stat really was misleading.

Still think his scoring rate is overall decent - and improving - when played as a striker, and I think those saying he won't get 20 goals/season for Arsenal are a bit deluded. I could easily see him doing that if he plays enough games.
 
JazzG said:
By the same token then you might as well loan out or get rid of Januzaj & Wilson as well because they might cost you points. Fergie got your club to where it is by thinking long term not just taking the easy simple solution.
Click to expand...
Striker's slightly different to midfield. Same goes for centre back, which is why so few teams in the Premier League (especially higher up the table) are willing to give young centre backs a long term role, but will regularly play a young left/right back.

You see promoted teams recycle the same older centre backs and strikers constantly.
 
The thing is that after last seasons fiasco we are under so much pressure to deliver results, we simply have to qualify for the CL, that we can't afford to give Welbeck the minutes that he needs to develop as a player. Looking at the first 3 games, it is clear that one of our biggest problems has been scoring goals, given Welbeck minutes to goal ratio, you can see why LVG thinks he is not the immediate answer to our goal scoring problem. Welbeck is also at an age were he has to play regardless of which club he is at. So he simply had to make a move, we as a club are now in a situation were we simply can't give him what he needs minutes.

It is however obvious that the club didn't want to just let him go to a rival like Arsenal, they would have preffered Tottenham or even better a midtable side. On top of that, they didn't want a permanent move, they wanted to loan him out. My thinking is that it would have been ideal from the clubs perspective if Welbeck was loaned out of for 2 years. In those 2 years he could develop further as a player and perhaps than he'd be ideal to step in as a replacement for out other strikers who'd be well in their thirties by then (RVP even 33). Ofcourse from Welbeck perspective that wasn't ideal, because even if he would improve enough over those 2 years, there still wouldn't be any guarantees of him than becoming lead striker at United. His future would be too uncertain, that is why he wanted a permanent solution. I can see why Arsenal appealed to him, not much competition for the striker position, next 6 months atleast almost a guanranteed starter and as club not too much of a step down from United, certainly not as much as a midtable team, in fact Arsenal might be a more secure safer place to get CL football in the near future.

The thing is if he really wanted to make it here at United he still had a chance to do so, he could have accepted a loan for a year or 2 and then take his chance again we the situation was more ideal for him to succeed (less pressure on the club, less competition, improved as a player). But because it was all a bit uncertain and because it would also have meant a temporary step down for him as a player he chose not to do it and opted for a permanent solution at a major rival team.

Make that what you will of it, but the club imo is not at fault for this. I can understand both sides, but what is clear to me is that playing for Manchester United wasn't and isn't everything for Welbeck, his own ambitions are more important to him than Manchester United and he opted for the easy way out of the club instead of for the hard way back in. So people who are overly sentimental about Welbeck and are portraying him as the embodiement of our identity are wrong as far as I'am concerned. If he was United through and through he wouldn't have pushed for a permanent deal to Arsenal. People who really believe the club is so stupid that they would have pushed Welbeck towards that move are just completley deluded. It was him that wanted to go to Arsenal and he wanted a permanent deal, not a loan. No reason at all to feel sorry for him or to blow things out of proportion and plunge yourself into an identity crisis over a player that clearly isn't worth it.

As a side not, I think he is going to be a good player for Arsenal but he'll never be one of the best striker in the league let alone the world. I think if he is given the chance, he'll average 15 to 20 goals a season for them. Perhaps there will be an exceptional season somewhere along the road for him where he'll average around 25 or more but I can't see him scoring 30+ like some of the elite strikers. Simply because he hasn't got it him in, he never has and he never will, he doesn't have the instinct, he just isn't a cold blooded finisher, and you can't train or grow that, you need to be born with it. It is the reason it hasn't worked out for him under 3 different trainers, it is the reason it won't work out for him at Arsenal or anywhere else for that matter either. Good player, usefull in attack, but he'll never be a top striker. And if by some miracle he does happen to suddenly become a cold blooded finisher who can score 30 a season, than there is no reason why we couldn't sign him back in a year or 2 or 3 (but I guanrtee you it won't happen).
 
justboy68 said:
7 of Welbeck's 16 goals from starts came in 11/12 and 7 from starts in 13/14. So no, not an upward trend just a huge lull in 12/13. The numbers are too low to draw any meaningful conclusions anyway. I think there's no doubt he is a better player now than he has ever been. Shame to sell him but not the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Was actually mainly thinking of England stats in terms of upward trend. You're right about the huge lull in 2012/13. Fergie's new Dutch toy definitely denied him opportunities in his preferred position that season. Probably would have been the same under Moyes if RvP had kept up his appearance record of the previous couple of years. Not so much a decline or stalling Welbeck's development, though, just marginalisation in the squad (literally and metaphorically, when you think about the time spent stuck out on the wing)
 
finneh said:
As I've said previously: United don't have the time or the inclination to develop strikers. This is because we want to win titles in the present and in the centre forward position (as well as goalkeeper) you can't do this whilst having player's who will cost you points because they are still learning their trade. That's the reason out last youth product to make it to our first XI as a striker consistently has been Mark Hughes (God knows about our last successful Goalkeeper to make it from the youth team?).

United buy World Class strikers. If Welbeck becomes a World Class striker, we will buy him (or someone similar/better) for a very high fee. So no-one on here should be mourning the loss of Danny Welbeck.
Click to expand...

No, your first goal should be getting back into the top 4 and this was made unnecessarily harder than it needs to be because you improved a rival´s side out of your own choice in an area where they needed it. People act like Welbeck had the power to force this move, when he still had two years left on contract and United sure as hell did not need the money. If Welbeck wants to leave, then you give him clear options: either a move abroad to a CL side or a transfer inside the PL to a club, which is not a direct rival. Out of all possible clubs you could have chosen, Arsenal was the worst option.

On one hand people argue, that you did not have the luxury to develop him further because of the possibility that it would lower your chances to qualify for the CL, but then you sell him to a direct rival, where he could effectively do the same by making Arsenal strong enough to stay above you and occupy a CL spot. Makes no sense.
 
ATEOTDL it's Van Gaal's judgement call.

We'll see if it turns out to be a good one.
 
Sphaero said:
No, your first goal should be getting back into the top 4 and this was made unnecessarily harder than it needs to be because you improved a rival´s side out of your own choice in an area where they needed it. People act like Welbeck had the power to force this move, when he still had two years left on contract and United sure as hell did not need the money. If Welbeck wants to leave, then you give him clear options: either a move abroad to a CL side or a transfer inside the PL to a club, which is not a direct rival. Out of all possible clubs you could have chosen, Arsenal was the worst option.

On one hand people argue, that you did not have the luxury to develop him further because of the possibility that it would lower your chances to qualify for the CL, but then you sell him to a direct rival, where he could effectively do the same by making Arsenal strong enough to stay above you and occupy a CL spot. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Well it is Welbeck that has the final say in this. We can say no we don't let you go to Arsenal, go to another team, but if he doesn't want to than that is that. Obviously we could have kept him here against his will and be stuck with an unhappy player who would be rotting on our bench and in the end it might have helped us with the top 4 push as indeed we would be weakening Arsenal (or not strenghtening them) but we aren't that kind of club.

We didn't chose to send him on a permanent deal to Arsenal, he asked for it, he wanted it and in the end we gave in to his demands because we don't keep players at the club against their will and £16m was probably the best we were going to get from him anyway.
 
Sphaero said:
No, your first goal should be getting back into the top 4 and this was made unnecessarily harder than it needs to be because you improved a rival´s side out of your own choice in an area where they needed it. People act like Welbeck had the power to force this move, when he still had two years left on contract and United sure as hell did not need the money. If Welbeck wants to leave, then you give him clear options: either a move abroad to a CL side or a transfer inside the PL to a club, which is not a direct rival. Out of all possible clubs you could have chosen, Arsenal was the worst option.

On one hand people argue, that you did not have the luxury to develop him further because of the possibility that it would lower your chances to qualify for the CL, but then you sell him to a direct rival, where he could effectively do the same by making Arsenal strong enough to stay above you and occupy a CL spot. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

People argue the same though when we refuse to sell Rooney last summer to Chelsea. Look what they have got now, Costa, who is a bigger monster and fit in their system perfectly.

In retrospective I hope we did sell Rooney last year and Welbeck could have stay here instead.
 
RedRonaldo said:
People argue the same though when we refuse to sell Rooney last summer to Chelsea. Look what they have got now, Costa, who is a bigger monster and fit in their system perfectly.

In retrospective I hope we did sell Rooney last year and Welbeck could have stay here instead.
Click to expand...
Rooney didn't want out enough to force it himself though.
Arsenal would have preferred to sell van Persie abroad, no doubt. But he made it impossible for them to do so.

Welbeck's situation is closer to van Persie's than Rooney's.
 
RedRonaldo said:
People argue the same though when we refuse to sell Rooney last summer to Chelsea. Look what they have got now, Costa, who is a bigger monster and fit in their system perfectly.

In retrospective I hope we did sell Rooney last year and Welbeck could have stay here instead.
Click to expand...

The fact we were fecking miles off the pace last season means that Chelsea's season seems fairly irrelevant.

If they'd signed Rooney, though, they'd have almost certainly won the league. Which would have been a massive pain the bollocks had we been competing with them at the time. That's without even getting into the potential negative effect not having Rooney would have had on our own title challenge. All in all, it's a very good idea not to sell players to your rivals and downright fecking negligent to sell players to your rivals that sort out the most obvious flaw in their squad.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The fact we were fecking miles off the pace last season means that Chelsea's season seems fairly irrelevant.

If they'd signed Rooney, though, they'd have almost certainly won the league. Which would have been a massive pain the bollocks had we been competing with them at the time. That's without even getting into the potential negative effect not having Rooney would have had on our own title challenge. All in all, it's a very good idea not to sell players to your rivals and downright fecking negligent to sell players to your rivals that sort out the most obvious flaw in their squad.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if van Gaal doesn't rate Welbeck enough to feel he can do an important job here, he probably doesn't rate him enough to think he'll solve anything for Arsenal, even if he's the type of player they need.
Whereas selling Rooney wasn't something we wanted to do last year. We rated him enough to be the main man, so selling him would have been suicide for two reasons.

Whether van Gaal's judgement was correct or not remains to be seen.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That's not true at all. There's stats that have been posted ad infinitum through this thread showing that his chance conversion rate (when played centrally) last season was better than any other striker in our squad. There's no chance this was true a few years back, so that's clearly an aspect of his game which has improved.

I also disagree that the Chelsea model is somehow radically different from ours, with better outcomes. Both clubs loan out players to develop them. If anything, United have a better record with a much higher number of players that have been sent out on loan, then come back to make a useful contribution to winning trophies. Welbeck fell into this category, even though he has since left. Ditto Cleverley and Evans (not to mention former greats like David Beckham) Chelsea have singularly failed to match this right up until this season, with Courtois and Lukaku, both of whom seem to be really exceptional talents. The risk of sending young players out on loan is that they will be marginalised by managers who would rather develop their own players or struggle to impose themselves at a club that is floundering. If the player concerned really is exceptionally advanced as a footballer for his age, then this is less of a risk. For relatively late developers like Danny they're no more likely to get the game time they need on loan than they would if they stayed put. Obviously, he seems to have turned the corner now and probably could have had a very succesful loan this season. It's quite possible that he would have, if the club wasn't intent on balancing the books and/or the player himself wasn't willing to go out on loan.
Click to expand...

Last season there wasn't a large enough sample size to determine anything in terms of Danny Welbeck's productivity. He played centrally sporadically, often against weaker teams or at times coming off the bench against tired legs. To talk convincingly about his "improved productivity" he would have to score 15-20 goals in a season, something he has never done or looked capable of doing.

I agree that selecting the appropriate club is key to the development of a player and Chelsea got it spot on with Courtois/Lukaku. I think we've often overrated our players and sent them to clubs that are actually above their level, which defeats the purposse of course. Cleverley is another player who should have been sent out on loan for another 2 seasons. He was starting to look like a well rounded player until we prematurely dropped him into a poor midfield, whereby his confidence dropped (despite a few good performances) and now he's at Aston Villa. Jonny Evans who you mention is another player who is now 2-3 years behind development wise, because he had several seasons playing sporadically in his youth (although for a defender it is nowhere near as terminal).

I disagree re: Welbeck's playing time. It was clear at Sunderland that he was playing whenever he was fit, almost always in his preferred position. I said it at the time and I reiterate it now, he should have had another season there (as Bruce alluded to at the time). After this in my opinion he would have had his pick of loan clubs for a 3rd season whereby I'm sure a club like Everton would be offering a nice loan fee (they wouldn't pay a hefty loan fee without wanting him as their main man). Likewise Fergie should have sent him on loan when he signed RVP.

At United we seem to have this view that if a player can fractionally contribute to our season, we should keep them in the squad, as we benefit. Whereas we should look at what is best for the player's development long term. Once they have the feel of playing with great player's the likes of Januzaj and Wilson should be similarly treated. Unless they show signs of displacing great player's at a young age (ala Ronaldo).

JazzG said:
By the same token then you might as well loan out or get rid of Januzaj & Wilson as well because they might cost you points. Fergie got your club to where it is by thinking long term not just taking the easy simple solution.
Click to expand...

As above. Januzaj and Wilson should be given maybe 2 years with the first team where they can train with quality player's and immerse themselves in the United culture. If they are an exceptional talent they will force their way into the squad in their preferred position regardless. If they are a very promising talent but not quite at the level we require they should be loaned out.

With midfielders (and defenders somewhat) in my opinion they can be afforded more time as every single lapse of concentration will not necessarily cost you goals and consequently points. If Januzaj makes a bad decision he usually concedes possession in the middle of the park, if a centre forward or goalkeeper make a bad decision it is often goals not scored/goals conceded.

It's not an easy/simple solution to take long term gain over losing a decent squad option short term, quite the opposite.

Sphaero said:
No, your first goal should be getting back into the top 4 and this was made unnecessarily harder than it needs to be because you improved a rival´s side out of your own choice in an area where they needed it. People act like Welbeck had the power to force this move, when he still had two years left on contract and United sure as hell did not need the money. If Welbeck wants to leave, then you give him clear options: either a move abroad to a CL side or a transfer inside the PL to a club, which is not a direct rival. Out of all possible clubs you could have chosen, Arsenal was the worst option.

On one hand people argue, that you did not have the luxury to develop him further because of the possibility that it would lower your chances to qualify for the CL, but then you sell him to a direct rival, where he could effectively do the same by making Arsenal strong enough to stay above you and occupy a CL spot. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Again that's your opinion. United's board won't be thinking top 4, they will be thinking how can we get back to winning titles. Arsenal are not a particular threat to United winning titles currently; City and Chelsea are.

Top 4 is small potato's for a club like United and Arsenal are have not been a "direct rival" since 2008.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The fact we were fecking miles off the pace last season means that Chelsea's season seems fairly irrelevant.

If they'd signed Rooney, though, they'd have almost certainly won the league. Which would have been a massive pain the bollocks had we been competing with them at the time. That's without even getting into the potential negative effect not having Rooney would have had on our own title challenge. All in all, it's a very good idea not to sell players to your rivals and downright fecking negligent to sell players to your rivals that sort out the most obvious flaw in their squad.
Click to expand...

I know, but point is the rival teams could use the same amount money to buy other players they need, if players availability isn't the issue here. Just look at Chelsea and City, they bought players elsewhere and won trophies, the result will be the same, whether we sell them our players or other teams sold theirs.
 
Speak said:
Rooney didn't want out enough to force it himself though.
Arsenal would have preferred to sell van Persie abroad, no doubt. But he made it impossible for them to do so.

Welbeck's situation is closer to van Persie's than Rooney's.
Click to expand...

Of course they would have, but Van Persie´s former contract at Arsenal ran until 2013, which made Summer 2012 the last possible date to really get cash for him, which they did. I also think that 30 Mil. € made a bigger difference for Arsenal in 2012 than 20 Mil. € for United now. On top of that United was not in direct competition with Arsenal back then. The latters direct competition were Tottenham, Everton and Liverpool for the last CL spot, while United was still a firm candidate in the title race.

NoArroJusBeta said:
Well it is Welbeck that has the final say in this. We can say no we don't let you go to Arsenal, go to another team, but if he doesn't want to than that is that. Obviously we could have kept him here against his will and be stuck with an unhappy player who would be rotting on our bench and in the end it might have helped us with the top 4 push as indeed we would be weakening Arsenal (or not strenghtening them) but we aren't that kind of club.

We didn't chose to send him on a permanent deal to Arsenal, he asked for it, he wanted it and in the end we gave in to his demands because we don't keep players at the club against their will and £16m was probably the best we were going to get from him anyway.
Click to expand...

Well its good, that United is such a super nice club, where contracts don´t seem to matter and a player can just get whatever he wants, no matter the consequenses for the club itself.
 
RedRonaldo said:
I know, but point is the rival teams could use the same amount money to buy other players they need, if players availability isn't the issue here. Just look at Chelsea and City, they bought players elsewhere and won trophies, the result will be the same, whether we sell them our players or other teams sold theirs.
Click to expand...

I see your logic but - as far as Arsenal are concerned - the simple fact they chose to sign Welbeck, over anyone else, confirms that he was their best possible option.

Of course, they might still break the bank for some striking superstar next season but if Welbeck has done his bit in ensuring the CL football that might help them convince that player to join Arsenal (as well as, potentially, keeping us out of the top four) then the damage is already done.
 
Sphaero said:
Of course they would have, but Van Persie´s former contract at Arsenal ran until 2013, which made Summer 2012 the last possible date to really get cash for him, which they did. I also think that 30 Mil. € made a bigger difference for Arsenal in 2012 than 20 Mil. € for United now. On top of that United was not in direct competition with Arsenal back then. The latters direct competition were Tottenham, Everton and Liverpool for the last CL spot, while United was still a firm candidate in the title race.



Well its good, that United is such a super nice club, where contracts don´t seem to matter and a player can just get whatever he wants, no matter the consequenses for the club itself.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like Welbeck is going to be the deciding factor over who makes the top 4 between us and Arsenal. I'd say you're well off the mark with that claim. A sharpshooter like Falcao (like RvP 2 seasons ago) is much more likely to make that kind of a difference.
 
MDFC Manager said:
You make it sound like Welbeck is going to be the deciding factor over who makes the top 4 between us and Arsenal. I'd say you're well off the mark with that claim. A sharpshooter like Falcao (like RvP 2 seasons ago) is much more likely to make that kind of a difference.
Click to expand...

It's all relative. The better the individual the bigger an impact he will have on his teams tally of points at the end of the season. Almost as important as individual quality is the strength in depth in their position of choice. If you've already got one or two great strikers, adding a third might not make much difference. If you've got just got one - not particularly great - strikers adding another very good one can make a huge difference.

If Rooney and RvP stay fit and hit a decent run of form, it's quite possible that Welbeck will have a much bigger impact at Arsenal than Falcao will have at United.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I see your logic but - as far as Arsenal are concerned - the simple fact they chose to sign Welbeck, over anyone else, confirms that he was their best possible option.
Click to expand...

Don´t forget that they signed him on the dead line day aswell. I would be curious to know what kind of striker Arsenal could have realistically signed for that kind of money at that point in time, who would have fit them as much as Welbeck.

finneh said:
Again that's your opinion. United's board won't be thinking top 4, they will be thinking how can we get back to winning titles. Arsenal are not a particular threat to United winning titles currently; City and Chelsea are.

Top 4 is small potato's for a club like United and Arsenal are have not been a "direct rival" since 2008.
Click to expand...

Well, then lets hope that your board won´t choke on the "small potato" and underestimate the current situation or the threat Arsenal poses. You might have splashed an enourmous amount of money on the transfer market in the last weeks, but this does not automatically make you a favourite for the title again. You are in for a huge transition, where you need to find a working system, which integrates a lot of new players, in a very short amount of time. I think you would be well advised to think about getting back into the CL before talking about a serious title challenge again.

I´m not saying this out of spite or bias, because I do sympathise with United more than any other British club, but I simply don´t look at the situation with red tinted glasses. Even with all the invested money your squad still does not match the ones of City or Chelsea. I just need to take a quick glance at your defense to come to that conclusion.
 
Last edited:
MDFC Manager said:
You make it sound like Welbeck is going to be the deciding factor over who makes the top 4 between us and Arsenal. I'd say you're well off the mark with that claim. A sharpshooter like Falcao (like RvP 2 seasons ago) is much more likely to make that kind of a difference.
Click to expand...
I'd say not having to rely on Sanogo for 4 months is a pretty decisive factor in the competition for the top 4.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It's all relative. The better the individual the bigger an impact he will have on his teams tally of points at the end of the season. Almost as important as individual quality is the strength in depth in their position of choice. If you've already got one or two great strikers, adding a third might not make much difference. If you've got just got one - not particularly great - strikers adding another very good one can make a huge difference.

If Rooney and RvP stay fit and hit a decent run of form, it's quite possible that Welbeck will have a much bigger impact at Arsenal than Falcao will have at United.
Click to expand...
I see your point and agree with it but I didn't compare the impact of Falcao at United. I meant Falcao would have very likely made a massive difference at Arsenal if they got him instead of Welbeck. I don't think Welbeck will make that kind of a difference, as Sphaero suggested.
 
I personally feel that as a fanbase, more than other team's fans (who have their own eccentricities) we have a tendency toward 'grass is always greener on the other side' type thinking.

Or, as Fergie termed, 'cow in the other field' type thinking.

You'll notice that we create these transfer mega threads where we covet a specific player and almost put them above the entire squad that we should be supporting - Sneijder is a prime example. This season it was Vidal, who thank f**k we didn't buy. Ronaldo also is elevated above the club and coveted as some kind of messiah who we can't get over.

It's an odd phenomenon that I think we're prone to more than any other set of fans.

We're now doing this exact same thing with Welbeck, a player who's had ample time and opportunity here and who at 23 clearly still isn't good enough to muscle past Rooney, Falcao or RvP based on what he's done here - that's the reality.

Some of the sentimental claptrap being posted in here is veering toward the hysterical and I almost wish the thread could be locked for a while until people calm down and get a grip on reality.

Seeing people trying to twist his stats to serve the agenda that we've sold a prolific striker is laughable. Welbeck's stats aren't really that impressive, similar to a striker like Crouch all in all. Which is probably where they'll stay.

I'd imagine he'll enjoy a honeymoon period at Arsenal which will no doubt be utterly unbearable both in the mainstream media and in here as well. But the reality is that Danny Welbeck is an average striker who at 23 still lacks that instinctive ruthless streak that makes a top striker.

Perhaps Wenger will convert him into a natural finisher and we'll all have good reason to sit whinging about spilt milk and bemoaning the fact that we're stuck with Falcao, Rooney and RvP while Arsenal have Welbeck, but until then for goodness sake try and keep it in perspective, and at least in the realms of reality.
 
Sphaero said:
Well, then lets hope that your board won´t choke on the "small potato" and underestimate the current situation or the threat Arsenal poses. You might have splashed an enourmous amount of money on the transfer market in the last weeks, but this does not automatically make you a favourite for the title again. You are in for a huge transition, where you need to find a working system, which integrates a lot of new players, in a very short amount of time. I think you would be well advised to think about getting back into the CL before talking about a serious title challenge again.

I´m not saying this out of spite or bias, because I do sympathise with United more than any other British club, but I simply don´t look at the situation with red tinted glasses. Even with all the invested money your squad still does not match the ones of City or Chelsea. I just need to take a quick glance at your defense to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

My point is only that we do not have a model that says "top 4", as this is relatively irrelevant to us (maybe CL revenue of £30m a year? Less than 7% of our turnover). Our model is to get ourselves back to the top. Selling Welbeck to Arsenal does absolutely nothing to prejudice that goal.

Could it mean that for a single season we finish 5th instead of 4th? So unlikely that it shouldn't be factored into any commercial decision (I'd say Sanchez up top with Ox/Walcott to provide width is arguably better than Welbeck anyway).
 
Sphaero said:
Of course they would have, but Van Persie´s former contract at Arsenal ran until 2013, which made Summer 2012 the last possible date to really get cash for him, which they did. I also think that 30 Mil. € made a bigger difference for Arsenal in 2012 than 20 Mil. € for United now. On top of that United was not in direct competition with Arsenal back then. The latters direct competition were Tottenham, Everton and Liverpool for the last CL spot, while United was still a firm candidate in the title race.



Well its good, that United is such a super nice club, where contracts don´t seem to matter and a player can just get whatever he wants, no matter the consequenses for the club itself.
Click to expand...

No matter the consequences for the club, we got £16m for him, I think that is a fair price. Jezus it is not like we sold our best player to our biggest rival for chump change.

We had 2 options:

Keep the player here against his will:
+ Arsenal don't get him
-We are stuck with an unhappy player
-We don't get £16m

Let him go to Arsenal
+We get £16m
-We let Arsenal have him and he might make them a better team

We would have preffered to send him on loan to a team like Tottenham or a midtable team but you can't force a player to do that, if he doesn't want it then those are not viable options.

In the end we chose to not stand in his way. Perhaps the first option might have been better in the short term but it is against our principals as a club and it might come back to bite us when we are in contract renewal talks with other players. Imagine denying Welbeck his move, he'd still be here at the club, with Falcao coming in he'd be essentially useless and he would hardly play, he'd be very unhappy with the situation and ofcourse he'd talk about that to other players, saying United don't care about their players best interest, they only care about themselves and to them you are nothing but a piece of paperwork. Someobody who has to sign a new long term contract might think twice about doing that if they believe United will never let him go once that piece of paper is signed. Some clubs act that way and decide to stand in the way of a player if they have something gain by that. Other clubs (like us) say a player only has to play for us if he really wants to, if he doesn't want to than he is not a United player anymore and he can go. Welbeck obviously wanted to go, so we let him, Arsenal was the only concrete offer on the table come deadline day so we decided not to stand in the way of his move, even if it was to a rival team. And Arsenal didn't get him for free, they paid £16m, which if compared to what we got for other players is not bad (United players aren't hot in the market anymore, so forget getting top dollar for a striker with 26 goals in 4 years).
 
The only thing that bothers me about this transfer, is not that he has gone, but the fee involved. We should have got a lot more money than £16m. There again, if he had gone for a lot more people would be saying, if he is worth that much, why are we selling him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.