David Gill Transfer warchest v2012

Your criticism of Gill is a moaning bit of muppetry, whinging that we're not signing the best players in the world every year, and blaming the chief executive for the fact that we have a wage structure that doesn't allow us to directly compete for signings with the likes of City and Real, despite the fact that doing so would clearly be unsustainable in our position.

I said nothing about signing the best players in the world every year, but for a club of our stature our recent record is very poor. Bayern, for instance, have no sugar daddy, and have succeeded in acquiring some pretty good players.

It's about straws in the wind rather than absolute knowledge. The Tevez case is at least partly a matter of public record. Immediately after we signed him on loan, Gill was on television saying that we intended to sign him to a permanent contract 'long before' the expiry of the loan. Repeatedly during his first year with the club Tevez told the media that he'd sign a contract 'tomorrow morning', and that money was not important. But we reneged on our public committment and failed to offer him a contract, despite his being an obvious asset to the side. Why?

From media reports it seems that Gill was playing hardball with Joorabchian and trying to pressurise him into letting Tevez go for less than the previously agreed price. A conspicuous piece of bad judgement on Gill's part, which eventually cost us the player. That suggests someone who's overly concerned with money, and too little concerned with having the best possible players we can afford at the club. Just what one would expect of an accountant.
 
Thank feck we didn't sign Tevez permanently. The fact that the main example you're using of Gill fecking up is that cnut astounds me really.
 
The thing about the young potential policy is why we dont move for the likes of Benzema or Sanchez earlier? We more often than not wait too long for players. Even back in the PLC days Cantona was talking about how we should sign Zidane almost two years before Juve did.
 
The thing about the young potential policy is why we dont move for the likes of Benzema or Sanchez earlier? We more often than not wait too long for players. Even back in the PLC days Cantona was talking about how we should sign Zidane almost two years before Juve did.

This can't be right. Our transfer business was done perfectly before The Glazers and David Gill came and fecked it up. I'm assuming you are mistaken here. Please check your facts next time before you post something so silly, there's a good lad.
 
:lol:

No. Just because they aren't as glamorous as attackers.

They're less expensive because they are less glamorous? Funny you laugh because that understanding is so incredibly simplistic I don't even know whether you're being serious or cracking a joke. I'll assume you're being serious.

A top team would pay a much heavier price in terms of results if they had average midfielders, wingers and strikers than if they had an average goal keeper or, to a lesser degree, defenders. Take for example, Barcelona, who are on one extreme: remarkably able strikers/midfielders and jokes for defenders, and yet they've still been great achievers on the pitch. Now, imagine the other extreme: jokes for midfielders/strikers and excellent defenders and a goalie. They wouldn't do nearly as well. In fact, I don't think they'd win anything. Those are two extremes but they illustrate the point that attacking players have a far more technical and more important role in the game and with that comes the glamour, the chasing around, and the high prices and wages. Defenders and goalies are important but their trade is less technical and consequently less glamorous - that's the truth. The core of the problem in English football is a focus and undue importance placed on less technical areas of the game. Like glorifying Keane, Lampard, Gerrard over Scholes.
 
I said nothing about signing the best players in the world every year, but for a club of our stature our recent record is very poor. Bayern, for instance, have no sugar daddy, and have succeeded in acquiring some pretty good players.

It's about straws in the wind rather than absolute knowledge. The Tevez case is at least partly a matter of public record. Immediately after we signed him on loan, Gill was on television saying that we intended to sign him to a permanent contract 'long before' the expiry of the loan. Repeatedly during his first year with the club Tevez told the media that he'd sign a contract 'tomorrow morning', and that money was not important. But we reneged on our public committment and failed to offer him a contract, despite his being an obvious asset to the side. Why?

From media reports it seems that Gill was playing hardball with Joorabchian and trying to pressurise him into letting Tevez go for less than the previously agreed price. A conspicuous piece of bad judgement on Gill's part, which eventually cost us the player. That suggests someone who's overly concerned with money, and too little concerned with having the best possible players we can afford at the club. Just what one would expect of an accountant.

Are you seriously regretting us not signing Tevez permanently???

Poor recent record? 3 league titles in the last 5 years???

Bayern have indeed managed to acquire some good players. Just like United have as well.
 
Err, it was Fergie who didn't want Zidane because he wanted someone who would play on the wing and Cantona told him Zidane saw himself as a midfield play (Fergie's Words).

We can try to sign players early and many times we moved quickly and got it done (Nani, Anderson, Smalling, Hernandez...). But sometimes the club or the player/agent we are dealing with isn't interested in moving fast and wants to milk it, get other clubs involved and get more money.
 
Err, it was Fergie who didn't want Zidane because he wanted someone who would play on the wing and Cantona told him Zidane saw himself as a midfield play (Fergie's Words).

I've heard a different story. It was between Zidane and Poborsky and Ferguson was using Euro 96 to scout them both, Zidane got injured and Poborsky had a great tournament with the Czech Rep. The rest is history.
 
They're less expensive because they are less glamorous? Funny you laugh because that understanding is so incredibly simplistic I don't even know whether you're being serious or cracking a joke. I'll assume you're being serious.

A top team would pay a much heavier price in terms of results if they had average midfielders, wingers and strikers than if they had an average goal keeper or, to a lesser degree, defenders. Take for example, Barcelona, who are on one extreme: remarkably able strikers/midfielders and jokes for defenders, and yet they've still been great achievers on the pitch. Now, imagine the other extreme: jokes for midfielders/strikers and excellent defenders and a goalie. They wouldn't do nearly as well. In fact, I don't think they'd win anything. Those are two extremes but they illustrate the point that attacking players have a far more technical and more important role in the game and with that comes the glamour, the chasing around, and the high prices and wages. Defenders and goalies are important but their trade is less technical and consequently less glamorous - that's the truth. The core of the problem in English football is a focus and undue importance placed on less technical areas of the game. Like glorifying Keane, Lampard, Gerrard over Scholes.

There's a reason the likes of Keane, Lampard and Gerrard are "gloryfied". They are superb players. Just like Scholes.
 
I've heard a different story. It was between Zidane and Poborsky and Ferguson was using Euro 96 to scout them both, Zidane got injured and Poborsky had a great tournament with the Czech Rep. The rest is history.

No that's false.

In SAF's own diary of the 96/97 season he wrote that he passed on Zidane because Zidane wanted to play CM. SAF wanted to play Zidane as a right winger and move Beckham to central midfield.
 
So it's expensive players you want, not necessarily the right ones? Weird!

Who are the best young defenders in the world then?

No, I was just pointing out we were probably able to get the right goalkeeper and great defenders because they're generally cheap and not because we're still necessarily competitive with respect to top talent. I was under the impression you were presenting that as evidence we have been able to buy the best players when we needed them.

I can't say I'm able to tell you the best young defenders in the world. But Jones can't... For one, he's played all over the place. And, secondly, he's been okay at RB and CB and fairly poor in midfield. I imagine to be one of the best young defenders in the world you have to young and regularly impressive in defense.
 
This can't be right. Our transfer business was done perfectly before The Glazers and David Gill came and fecked it up. I'm assuming you are mistaken here. Please check your facts next time before you post something so silly, there's a good lad.

:)

I give up. 'Tis clear that Gill's roguish charm has won yer hearts. I only hope that when Davy abscounds to Buenos Aires with the Glazer's entire life savings, ye'll have the grace to admit I was right all along.
 
No that's false.

In SAF's own diary of the 96/97 season he wrote that he passed on Zidane because Zidane wanted to play CM. SAF wanted to play Zidane as a right winger and move Beckham to central midfield.

Christ on a bike :lol: he doesn't help himself in terms of the reputation he's getting for centre midfield does he :lol:
 
There's a reason the likes of Keane, Lampard and Gerrard are "gloryfied". They are superb players. Just like Scholes.

Not saying they are glorified for no reason, just saying glorifying them over Scholes indicates, for me, importance placed in the wrong place.
 
No, I was just pointing out we were probably able to get the right goalkeeper and great defenders because they're generally cheap and not because we're still necessarily competitive with respect to top talent. I was under the impression you were presenting that as evidence we have been able to buy the best players when we needed them.

I can't say I'm able to tell you the best young defenders in the world. But Jones can't... For one, he's played all over the place. And, secondly, he's been okay at RB and CB and fairly poor in midfield. I imagine to be one of the best young defenders in the world you have to young and regularly impressive in defense.

Cheap?

De Gea, Jones and Smalling cost around £50million for the three. Stop talking bollocks.
 
No that's false.

In SAF's own diary of the 96/97 season he wrote that he passed on Zidane because Zidane wanted to play CM. SAF wanted to play Zidane as a right winger and move Beckham to central midfield.

Wow what an error by fergie if its TRUE.
 
:)

I give up. 'Tis clear that Gill's roguish charm has won yer hearts. I only hope that when Davy abscounds to Buenos Aires with the Glazer's entire life savings, ye'll have the grace to admit I was right all along.

I don't think he's perfect, but he's no worse than Kenyon was, and we're no worse in the transfer market now than we were under the PLC and dealing with Edwards, when every summer Fergie would have to battle the board for funds.

For the players you've listed that we've missed out on during Gill's tenure you could list as many that they refused to stump up for as a PLC, Salas and Batistuta being the two high profile ones that spring to mind.
 
I said nothing about signing the best players in the world every year, but for a club of our stature our recent record is very poor. Bayern, for instance, have no sugar daddy, and have succeeded in acquiring some pretty good players.

It's about straws in the wind rather than absolute knowledge. The Tevez case is at least partly a matter of public record. Immediately after we signed him on loan, Gill was on television saying that we intended to sign him to a permanent contract 'long before' the expiry of the loan. Repeatedly during his first year with the club Tevez told the media that he'd sign a contract 'tomorrow morning', and that money was not important. But we reneged on our public committment and failed to offer him a contract, despite his being an obvious asset to the side. Why?

From media reports it seems that Gill was playing hardball with Joorabchian and trying to pressurise him into letting Tevez go for less than the previously agreed price. A conspicuous piece of bad judgement on Gill's part, which eventually cost us the player. That suggests someone who's overly concerned with money, and too little concerned with having the best possible players we can afford at the club. Just what one would expect of an accountant.

Completely agree with you. The way I remember it Tevez was very eager to stay, behaving himself, and - at least to me - playing much than Berba when he had the chance. I remember even feeling sorry for the way he was being treated. Now, if we passed up on him because SAF foresaw trouble in terms of his attitude and what not, then fair play - great call. But I think the reason was simply money as you say and SAF just preferring Berbatov - he seemed to favor him for some reason. Knowing SAF man management prowess, it could very well have been him just not having a good sense of Tevez's attitude.
 
I meant generally cheap-er than attackers of similar stature. It would've been nice if you'd bothered to understand the conversation first.

I read the conversation, and understand it. And it is my understanding that you're talking bollocks.
 
I don't think he's perfect, but he's no worse than Kenyon was, and we're no worse in the transfer market now than we were under the PLC and dealing with Edwards, when every summer Fergie would have to battle the board for funds.

For the players you've listed that we've missed out on during Gill's tenure you could list as many that they refused to stump up for as a PLC, Salas and Batistuta being the two high profile ones that spring to mind.

I'm not really saying we are. What it boils down to is that I don't think Gill is the best person to be doing our transfer negotiating. But that's just an impression. Not being privy to the inner workings of Manchester United, I could be completely wrong.

But my prejudice against David Gill is of long vintage, and I won't abandon it readily. :D

Anyway, no one agrees with me, and I'm done.
 
Completely agree with you. The way I remember it Tevez was very eager to stay, behaving himself, and - at least to me - playing much than Berba when he had the chance. I remember even feeling sorry for the way he was being treated. Now, if we passed up on him because SAF foresaw trouble in terms of his attitude and what not, then fair play - great call. But I think the reason was simply money as you say and SAF just preferring Berbatov - he seemed to favor him for some reason. Knowing SAF man management prowess, it could very well have been him just not having a good sense of Tevez's attitude.

Yeah! Someone who agrees with me in this cold and lonely world. I'd kiss the hem of your garment....... if you had a garment.......and I had lips.........and you didn't take it the wrong way.......
 
Yeah! Someone who agrees with me in this cold and lonely world. I'd kiss the hem of your garment....... if you had a garment.......and I had lips.........and you didn't take it the wrong way.......

lol You've made things irreversibly awkward between us now.
 
I read the conversation, and understand it. And it is my understanding that you're talking bollocks.

:lol: Well, I don't think whatever alternative opinion you have to mine - which, I must say, you've wisely chosen not to present - is too sensible either.
 
This can't be right. Our transfer business was done perfectly before The Glazers and David Gill came and fecked it up. I'm assuming you are mistaken here. Please check your facts next time before you post something so silly, there's a good lad.

trying.jpg
 
No that's false.

In SAF's own diary of the 96/97 season he wrote that he passed on Zidane because Zidane wanted to play CM. SAF wanted to play Zidane as a right winger and move Beckham to central midfield.

Sometimes I do wonder if we're too obsessed with the 442. Surely for a player of Zidane's talent you just play him in his favored position and build the team around that rather having the two options of CM and WINGER?
 
I am being unfair of course, but the guy at the top has to carry the can for failure. Ask any of the managers who've lost their jobs in the PL recently.

My feeling about Gill is that he places too much emphasis on ingratiating himself with the owners by saving them a few million here and there, and too little on the footballing requirement to get the best players. He's the wrong person to be conducting our transfers. It should be a football guy, not a blooming accountant.

Look what good that does. Carrol 35 million :lol:, Downing 20 million :lol:, Zlatan 50 million plus Eto :lol:, Torres 50 million:lol:, Shevchenko 30 million :lol:, Kaka, 65 million. Out of those players did any one of them prove at all pivotal for their teams?

Don't fecking tell me football guys make the right choice. Half of them make fecking woeful decisions that cost incredible sums of money.
 
Look what good that does. Carrol 35 million :lol:, Downing 20 million :lol:, Zlatan 50 million plus Eto :lol:, Torres 50 million:lol:, Shevchenko 30 million :lol:, Kaka, 65 million. Out of those players did any one of them prove at all pivotal for their teams?

Don't fecking tell me football guys make the right choice. Half of them make fecking woeful decisions that cost incredible sums of money.

Instead we got berbatov for 30m lol, homeless for 7m lol, tosic for 7m lol, fat brazilian for 20m lol, diouf for 4m lol.

Bad business comes in all shapes and fees.
 
Err, it was Fergie who didn't want Zidane because he wanted someone who would play on the wing and Cantona told him Zidane saw himself as a midfield play (Fergie's Words).

We can try to sign players early and many times we moved quickly and got it done (Nani, Anderson, Smalling, Hernandez...). But sometimes the club or the player/agent we are dealing with isn't interested in moving fast and wants to milk it, get other clubs involved and get more money.

:lol:

Some things never change.

Instead we got berbatov for 30m lol, homeless for 7m lol, tosic for 7m lol, fat brazilian for 20m lol, diouf for 4m lol.

Bad business comes in all shapes and fees.

Homeless will come good, just in ways that you won't see.
 
What some people don't seem to understand is that if we sign a Young or a Jones for £15-16 million - and they don't turn out as planned, we can still sell them without a major loss.

However if Liverpool decides to sell Carroll - they will lose big. If they had bought him for £18 million - they would probably get the majority of the cash back because there is always a club willing to pay £10-12 million for someone like him even if he flopped in Liverpool. However at £35 mill - only maybe 10 clubs in the world could afford that - and those clubs would only buy him if he plays so well that Liverpool don't want to sell him!
 
What some people don't seem to understand is that if we sign a Young or a Jones for £15-16 million - and they don't turn out as planned, we can still sell them without a major loss.

However if Liverpool decides to sell Carroll - they will lose big. If they had bought him for £18 million - they would probably get the majority of the cash back because there is always a club willing to pay £10-12 million for someone like him even if he flopped in Liverpool. However at £35 mill - only maybe 10 clubs in the world could afford that - and those clubs would only buy him if he plays so well that Liverpool don't want to sell him!

What some people don't seem to understand is that nowadays every club has a great scouting net at par with ours, that small clubs are not as fools as they used to be and that the majority of players have agents who will do their very best to bring as much to the player as possible. Value deals are still possible but such deal are rare.

There's still space of improvement from United on this front. For example big club 'rejects' (ex Sneijder, VDV, Higuan, Sahin etc) should be considered. However I doubt any club can build an entire team around the value concept.

Regarding the Carroll deal, that was stupid as much as buying Bebe for 7m was stupid. As I said before stupid deals come in all shapes and forms.
 
Instead we got berbatov for 30m lol, homeless for 7m lol, tosic for 7m lol, fat brazilian for 20m lol, diouf for 4m lol.

Bad business comes in all shapes and fees.

As much as I do not like Berbatov and 30 million was overpriced, we paid up for him and that was on Fergies persistence not Gills. Berbatov and Veron were Fergusons mistakes.

We made profit off Tosic, Doiuf has turned into a handy player for Hannover and Bebe is certainly not given the credit he deserves. Instead feckwits focus on his failures instead of not only the context of his professional experience, but the qualities he's proven to have. For a player that can't cross, he's got a half decent touch, can play the ball on the ground somewhat decently, shit loads of pace and absolute belter of a long range shot.

Anderson is arguably the only player we have properly paid over the odds for, but he was also the most promising central midfielder for his age in the world when we bought him. Even now he still shows the quality that helps keep the faith that he'll turn into a cracking player.


But of course with the likes of Bebe and Anderson, it requires patience which some people can't get through their fecking heads.

Nearly every single one of the player I mentioned where established players bar Carroll. They also cost a shit load more than any of the players you listed. You can hit and miss on players under 10 million.
 
As much as I do not like Berbatov and 30 million was overpriced, we paid up for him and that was on Fergies persistence not Gills. Berbatov and Veron were Fergusons mistakes.

We made profit off Tosic, Doiuf has turned into a handy player for Hannover and Bebe is certainly not given the credit he deserves. Instead feckwits focus on his failures instead of not only the context of his professional experience, but the qualities he's proven to have. For a player that can't cross, he's got a half decent touch, can play the ball on the ground somewhat decently, shit loads of pace and absolute belter of a long range shot.

Anderson is arguably the only player we have properly paid over the odds for, but he was also the most promising central midfielder for his age in the world when we bought him. Even now he still shows the quality that helps keep the faith that he'll turn into a cracking player.


But of course with the likes of Bebe and Anderson, it requires patience which some people can't get through their fecking heads.

Nearly every single one of the player I mentioned where established players bar Carroll. They also cost a shit load more than any of the players you listed. You can hit and miss on players under 10 million.

We're not a flea market but a football club. Players like Tosic, Diouf etc were a flop irrespective whether we ended up breakeven or what they did somewhere else. BTW if you remove your red tinted glasses you'll notice that Bebe was actually a bad signing too.

As I said good players/bad players come in all shape and forms. Don't forget that some of our finest legends were, in fact, either British transfer record buyings (Law, Robson, Cole etc) or club record signings (ex Ruud). We also broke the defense world record signing twice with Stam and Rio. Do we regret that? I don't know what you think but I'd rather have 1 Cristiano Ronaldo (sold to Real for 80m) then 11 Bebes.

As stated before good/bad players come in all shape and forms and all strategies (value + big players only) have its strengths and weaknesses. That's why one must diversify between one strategy and another. In my opinion a club should normally use the former to boost the reserves while use the latter to address first team weaknesses which keep on persisting despite all efforts made (Ex our CM).
 
I said nothing about signing the best players in the world every year, but for a club of our stature our recent record is very poor. Bayern, for instance, have no sugar daddy, and have succeeded in acquiring some pretty good players.

It's about straws in the wind rather than absolute knowledge. The Tevez case is at least partly a matter of public record. Immediately after we signed him on loan, Gill was on television saying that we intended to sign him to a permanent contract 'long before' the expiry of the loan. Repeatedly during his first year with the club Tevez told the media that he'd sign a contract 'tomorrow morning', and that money was not important. But we reneged on our public committment and failed to offer him a contract, despite his being an obvious asset to the side. Why?

From media reports it seems that Gill was playing hardball with Joorabchian and trying to pressurise him into letting Tevez go for less than the previously agreed price. A conspicuous piece of bad judgement on Gill's part, which eventually cost us the player. That suggests someone who's overly concerned with money, and too little concerned with having the best possible players we can afford at the club. Just what one would expect of an accountant.

That is 100% complete and utter guff.

Tevez and his agent engineered a move from before Christmas and went back on their word. I can't find it now but I have a timeline of the quotes he made from that time to the time he left and it is the most contradictory nonsense you will ever read. We could sign him for £20m from Kia but city offered £47m and a massive salary and a clause of being the squads top earner at any time.

You're just making bollocks up because Gill runs a tight ship and you'd like to see us throw money around like there is no tomorrow. Ultimate muppetry. Tevez made a mockery of this club and Ferguson with his behaviour yet you seem to not only condone it but side with it. You need a reality check, football is about more than names like Tevez. I'd take a team of Fletchers and mid-table finishes over paying people like Tevez whatever they want and the plastic, soulless league titles that come with them any day of the week.