David Gill Transfer warchest v2012
- Thread starter wr8_utd
- Start date
dong fangzhuo was much much worse. Bebe at least looked half decent in the reserves.
I agree. At least with Bebe you can see some raw materials (great shot, pace and strength). With Dong you just did not see anything.
Yeah but Dong cost peanuts and helped us capture the hearts of a few Chinese.
Dong actually scored a couple of good goals on a pre season friendly tour but yes he was also shite.
Aye but he was on about least skillful signing I think. The problem with Bebe is most judge him on those few shocking games where he looked like he was bricking himself (considering the change of scenery I don't know why we played him so soon). In the reserves you could see some talent, he's still not good enough but not as bad as the simple folk like to make out.
Or the gaffer.
Sorry, but that's way too much guesswork. If we rated Tevez so highly, we would have sealed that deal before making a move for another forward, Berbatov in this case. I don't think keeping a trio of Rooney, Berbatov and Tevez would have worked long term. And we've seen what happens when Tevez is unhappy, even when he DOES have a contract.
No he didn't. We all knew he wouldn't be good enough for United. However I must admit that I could never foresee that he would have to earn his livings in Azerbajan either.
Gill: United can compete on transfers
David Gill is confident Manchester United will be able to challenge their big-spending noisy neighbours in the transfer market this summer.
However, the United chief executive admits his club could quite easily be "out-muscled" by Manchester City when going for certain targets and concedes they may have to resort to charm to persuade some players to snub the millions on offer at the Etihad Stadium.
"We believe we can compete," Gill said. "Our turnover and our cash profits demonstrate we can invest in players as necessary. Other clubs may pay slightly more but we pay very good salaries."
He added: "The romance of United is there for everyone to see.
"A player coming to Manchester United has the benefit of working under Sir Alex Ferguson, playing in front of 76,000 every week, and there is our history and heritage and the commercial spin-offs.
"We shouldn't be shy or embarrassed or worried about not being able to attract top players because I firmly believe we can. You can play with great players in a fantastic environment. That's a very good package so why wouldn't you choose that?"
Last Sunday Roberto Mancini guided City to their first league title since 1968 after a dramatic injury-time winner from Sergio Aguero pushed United into second on goal difference.
United boss Sir Alex Ferguson is determined to stop City dominating the Barclays Premier League and will look to strengthen his squad this summer, with Lille midfielder Eden Hazard thought to be high on his shortlist.
However Gill admits United may lose out on some signings this summer if a player's wage is a major factor in the transfer.
"If a player says 'I'm relaxed I can either go to City, United or Chelsea and it will just come down to a money thing' then they may out-muscle us," Gill said. "But that's their choice. We say: 'fine, have our own parameters'. We have to make sure our salary ranges are appropriate."
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/s...n-transfers-16160483.html?r=RSS#ixzz1vCO3evZ8
IMO i think his take on transfers is a bit outdated.
David Gill is confident Manchester United will be able to challenge their big-spending noisy neighbours in the transfer market this summer.
However, the United chief executive admits his club could quite easily be "out-muscled" by Manchester City when going for certain targets and concedes they may have to resort to charm to persuade some players to snub the millions on offer at the Etihad Stadium.
"We believe we can compete," Gill said. "Our turnover and our cash profits demonstrate we can invest in players as necessary. Other clubs may pay slightly more but we pay very good salaries."
He added: "The romance of United is there for everyone to see.
"A player coming to Manchester United has the benefit of working under Sir Alex Ferguson, playing in front of 76,000 every week, and there is our history and heritage and the commercial spin-offs.
"We shouldn't be shy or embarrassed or worried about not being able to attract top players because I firmly believe we can. You can play with great players in a fantastic environment. That's a very good package so why wouldn't you choose that?"
Last Sunday Roberto Mancini guided City to their first league title since 1968 after a dramatic injury-time winner from Sergio Aguero pushed United into second on goal difference.
United boss Sir Alex Ferguson is determined to stop City dominating the Barclays Premier League and will look to strengthen his squad this summer, with Lille midfielder Eden Hazard thought to be high on his shortlist.
However Gill admits United may lose out on some signings this summer if a player's wage is a major factor in the transfer.
"If a player says 'I'm relaxed I can either go to City, United or Chelsea and it will just come down to a money thing' then they may out-muscle us," Gill said. "But that's their choice. We say: 'fine, have our own parameters'. We have to make sure our salary ranges are appropriate."
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/s...n-transfers-16160483.html?r=RSS#ixzz1vCO3evZ8
IMO i think his take on transfers is a bit outdated.
Said the same thing last year or the year before.
Bollocks is it outdated. That there is the basic premise of running a successful, ongoing business. He's totally right, only the likes of City and Chelsea are in a position to play Fantasy Football, the rest of us have to operate within certain parameters.
If a player says "I'm not fussed between United, City or Chelsea", then that probably says a lot about their mercenary culture. We tend to sign players that have the United DNA - it's not exactly failed us, has it?
Its outdated because its build around the concept that manchester utd is the center of the world and that players are more then just employees doing a job. Those times are sadly over.
It makes financial sense however its a bit rich coming from a club whose comfortable sitting on a mountain of debt.
I disagree, we can't compete on wages and the like etc with City but I'd rather we kept to those values and still get players who view it as more than just a job. Those values are what saw us through all the previous supposed empire ending challenges. What we currently face with City is no different than what we faced with Blackburn or Chelsea. Same shit, different shirt.
As ever, the caf only sees things in black and white. The truth lies somewhere in between - there are other factors than money as to why a player may move club, and United does have a pull, but money is a big factor in addition to that.
It depends on the player but is probably about a 50/50 split in a lot of cases.
It depends on the player but is probably about a 50/50 split in a lot of cases.
It seems we are indeed skint and now reliant on the pulling power of our history/SAF to entice players to our club
I am not delving into the issue of what is right or wrong although as stated before i find it rich from the club to stand on high moral ground when we got owners who know jack shit about what man utd truly is and who had saddled rhe club with so much debt. My argument is that the concept that man utd is the center of the world and that players would refuse better conditions just to sign with us is outdated. Players are employees and there are bigger (let me use the glazers words) companies than man utd
To conclude it would be more correct to say that we normally sign any player who havent fallen in real, barca, chelsea and shitty radar
What is your answer then?
We're not skint and we're spending the same money on players that we always have. 60m last summer was a lot of cash. The issue is that it seems like not so much when you compare it to what Roman and the Arabs have been spending in recent years. If we drop 60m again this summer, I reckon we'll get three quality players which is just about what we need.
I added it ti my previous post
I don't see any moral high ground standing though. Just him stating what we have to offer. Footbal Clubs are not companies though, it's the balance between the clubs persona and it's business needs that makes for an effective club.
Really?
This is the problem United, and a lot of fans seem to have - "if a player chooses City he must be going there for the money" - the simple fact is they may not have the history but players are interested in the here and now - and City can offer both massive wages and trophies.
United need to wise up - if I was a player without a personal attachment to any particular club I'd look at United and think that 1) Fergie won't go on for ever and 2) unless the clubs spends a few quid they could be on the slide - and I'd ask myself where I had the most chance of success long term.
We saw it with Wayne Rooney - he wanted to know where the club was headed, and whether they matched his ambitions. Any player will do the same, especially one with plenty of options.
If United think the lure of the clubs past will be enough top convince players without making big plans for the future then they'll be in trouble.
Gill's warchest to get bigger after selling Nani. nice.
Mate why do you think Toure now wants away? Their players don't give a shit about the club or the culture. They'd sooner win the premier league and then shit on the club. This is the same club thats never won a european cup and their best player is saying he's done all he can at City*.
*In before people bring up Ronaldo.
At the same time, let's not forget the "lure of the club's past" is a big part of the reason Chelsea/City feel they have to pay these premiums in the first place.
It's a powerful factor.
Where's that from?
Exactly, players don't go to the likes of the Milans, Juves, Bayerns and even Barca and Madrid for purely monetary reasons. When ever the latest rich club appears in all the top leagues, there is always a transition period before the culture of the clubs starts attracting the top players again.
allegedly his agent spoke with Inter and Milan yesterday.
edit: read it on the internet. no quotes.
Isn't he one of Mendes boys?
No chance. The club would be stupid to sell him, and he said himself on his last international duty that he's going to sign a new contract.
Yep, and Mendes loves us thanks to Bebe
Have you got a link to that?
Maybe so - but (in my opinion) not sufficient to attract players to the club on its own.
The point I'm making is that players are no longer joining City only for the money, they are now one of the best sides in Europe and look like kicking on.
United, in contrast, are heading towards a watershed with the need to replace the likes of Scholes, Giggs and Ferdinand inmminently - the question is whether they have the cash to bring in sufficient quality to replace those players with players of a similar stature and/or ability. The jury's out whether they have, and if not, there's a decent chance they'll fall behind city.
As a player with the option to sign for both clubs - a decision has to be made.
Because he seems to want to move back to Spain - probably more for lifestyle reasons that footballing reasons. Fact is few English clubs will compete for foreign players with Real or Barca. For what its worth I think he'll be at City next year.
It's in Polish, i think it could be some Italian source.
Well in the Nani thread it mentions his brother, not agent. The whole thing is bullshit. There seems to be some stupid article linking him to Italian clubs every transfer window.
If we sold Nani I think I would die a little inside.
The amount of players on his books it could have been about anyone.
To be honest, I'd be far less surprised if it was Anderson.
Ah! Ok. Bobbins overseas reports based on the reports here yesterday no doubt.
Anyone who has to be convinced to join either United or City or Chelsea is not needed at Old Trafford.
I'm not saying that our history should give us anyone we want and bla bla bla, but it's clear that such a player only wants money.
I'm not saying that our history should give us anyone we want and bla bla bla, but it's clear that such a player only wants money.
It's that sort of self righteous attitude that we leave us with substandard players.