Fernandinho

Chabon said:
Its not exactly a coincidence that City have spent £650m on transfers in five seasons while United have spent a little over £200m. United have carefully gone about building a squad which can compete at the highest level, while City have burnt through dozens of players and several managers in an absurd process of trial and error which would have destroyed any real football club.
Click to expand...

City had a long way to go to get near United or Chelsea - at a time when transfer fees were going mad. They've spent a lot of money, are now reigning it in and will be succesful long term with what seems to be a relatively sensible policy - seemingly trying to build a squad rather than neccessarily sign the best players every year.

Its a lot easier for a side like United - established already after a decade and more of success - on the pitch and commercially. Whether its morally "right" how City have done it depends on your view points but spending huge sums of money is the only way to build a league winning side when you start in mid-table.
 
Shark22 said:
I would have been impressed, but vs that Newcastle side, I'd hardly be over the moon. Our midfield would have bossed Newcastle too. He's still a long way to go in this league.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Any fan would be pleased with that performance is all I'm saying.
 
Comsmit said:
Ok thanks for that revealing insight. I feel a lot more grounded after that.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, with some of the nonsense you were talking it seemed like you needed someone to point out the obvious to you. I'm always here if you need more help in the future.
 
Certainly a good debut. Looked very comfortable on the ball, played some excellent passes, and did what he needed to (which wasn't a lot) defensively.
 
RedRover said:
City had a long way to go to get near United or Chelsea - at a time when transfer fees were going mad.
Click to expand...

Oh, well that's okay then. I guess that explains why after their initial burst of spending they calmed down once they were amongst the elite in 2011...oh no wait, they went out and spent another 250m of an Arab Feudal Lord's cash on transfers in a little over two years (You have a very stranged notion of 'reigning it in').

The "we had to catch up" thing is complete bollocks*, their squad three years ago already cost more than ours to assemble, and despite being worth far more than ours going into the summer they once again spent a feckton of money that has absolutely nothing to do with their football club. There's no coherent strategy here, it's just obscene spending until you're on top, and the proof of the lack of coherence is the fact that even after outspending us by roughly the proportion that we've outspent Southampton, they're still not any better than us.

*And that's not even mentioning the small matter of them having one of the most expensive squads outside the top four even before the Arabs showed up.
 
Chabon said:
Oh, well that's okay then. I guess that explains why after their initial burst of spending they calmed down once they were amongst the elite in 2011...oh no wait, they went out and spent another 250m of an Arab Feudal Lord's cash on transfers in a little over two years (You have a very stranged notion of 'reigning it in').

The "we had to catch up" thing is complete bollocks*, their squad three years ago already cost more than ours to assemble, and despite being worth far more than ours going into the summer they once again spent a feckton of money that has absolutely nothing to do with their football club. There's no coherent strategy here, it's just obscene spending until you're on top, and the proof of the lack of coherence is the fact that even after outspending us by roughly the proportion that we've outspent Southampton, they're still not any better than us.

*And that's not even mentioning the small matter of them having one of the most expensive squads outside the top four even before the Arabs showed up.
Click to expand...

I disagree with a lot of what you're saying, and I dont see why people are so outraged by City, or any other club spending large sum of money on players, and I've explained why I have that view a number of times.

What we currently have is a competative league - in terms of entertainment the best in years in my view. I like the City and United rivalry, I like Jose being back at Chelsea and it'll be a good season with plenty of twists and turns - that's why I like football and sport in general.

What I see is a lot of hypocritical United fans on here bleating about what City have spent. Nobody was complaining when we bought Veron, or Van Nistelrooy, or Ferdinand, or Rooney, or Roy Keane (british record), Jaap Stam (record for a defender), Henning Berg (british record for a defender) or were in for Alan Shearer at what was then a massive sum of money, or when players at United were getting contracts far and above what other PL clubs could offer (Keane on £70k a week, Ronaldo the first player on £100k plus etc). The fact was very few clubs could compete - so United had it all their own way a lot of the time.

People defend this by saying "the money was all self earned" - but it made little difference because just like Liverpool in the 70's and early 80's one club could buy all the best players and even title rivals were left behind. It wasnt a level playing field, irrespective of the fact that United had every right top spend their money how they saw fit.

What I see now is a lot of fans professing to be concerned about the health of the game and wanting to stop the madness. What they actually want is United to be able to spend huge sums on world class players like Fabregas and Ronaldo, and other clubs not to be able to and thereby return to the old days.

If I were a fan of another club and I saw United spending huge sums - despite being hundreds of millions in debt I'd ask why that was fine but being funded by a rich owner isn't. Bottom line for me - modern football is all about money. United have been the driving force in this country, hence why they're worth so much, they benefit from the PL as a product as much, if not more than any other club - the better the product, the more they make so I have no issue with it. And the holier than thou attitude I find bizzare - we'll win sometimes, lose sometimes, but I wouldnt have it any other way - it'd be boring otherwise.
 
Comsmit said:
You can never be completely sure of anything with a player though, even when you scout extensively and pay big money. You act as if United have never splurged big money without a second thought. The club are not paupers ffs a really good midfielder for £30 million should not be a problem with the amount of cash pouring into the coffers.
Click to expand...

No I don't for starters. Go and look at the highest transfer fee's for the club and look at their service record if you want proof. You're living in lala land if you think United are going to spend serious money on a 'possibility' signing such as this.

RedRover said:
They paid what they needed to to get him and based on what very little has been seen of him, he looks a good buy. If United had bought him and he'd performed like that most fans would, quite rightly, be over the moon.
Click to expand...
Turn it up you bell end. The markets are completely different for both clubs. City can pay whatever they feel like because they can pay whatever they feel like and it doesn't effect them. United have to be 100% certain they are getting enough of the value back on their money to think about going in for this kind of gamble.

You are illustrating my point by saying 'they pay whatever they felt was needed'. Not many clubs on the planet can really do that in a situation such as this. No 'moaning' no 'bleating' about it. It's a fecking fact. Imagine if United went in for him at 30m and he was shit. People 5 years down the track would be saying how pointless and fat he is and wondering why he is still on the payroll.

edit; after reading the subsequent discussion and moanyness about money I want to distance myself from that. It's not about stupid spending it's about not having a floor to hit when you spend big and can't stay up anymore. United have one and it's hard as feck and will completely shatter the club if we feck it up. City can just float on forever paying more for players if they don't achieve success. Merely linking it with United's inability to go for a player such as this in the current market. They simply don't have the ability to put a fee like this into scope.

On fernandiho I saw a bit of him and he looked very tidy and a smart player. Should be a good little buy.
 
Genius Me! said:
You're welcome, with some of the nonsense you were talking it seemed like you needed someone to point out the obvious to you. I'm always here if you need more help in the future.
Click to expand...

Catch yourself on. What is nonsensical about it? Go on tell me I'm interested.

Sometimes in business you are required to over-invest in order to stay ahead of the chasing pack, or indeed catch up with the market leaders. When there is a scarcity of resources (in this case top central midfielders) available, prices go up. Or when you are a club known to have a high level of capital, such as City or United....you are required to pay a premium for the best players.

Some people in on here act as if we have to be so careful with our pennies we can't "risk" £30 million on a proven midfielder who is a full international and operated effectively on numerous occasions in of all competitions....the Champions League. We are fecking raking in the cash and smugly boasting about it aswell. If our Chief Executive so confidently proclaims we can splurge £70-80 million on one player then this type of purchase should not be beyond the club. Then again United appear to want to set valuations in a sellers market so it kind of doesn't ring true when you see the activity we have so far been engaged in. If you want a player that badly you pay up or shut up as far as I'm concerned, it's that simple.
 
RedRover said:
City had a long way to go to get near United or Chelsea - at a time when transfer fees were going mad. They've spent a lot of money, are now reigning it in and will be succesful long term with what seems to be a relatively sensible policy - seemingly trying to build a squad rather than neccessarily sign the best players every year.

Its a lot easier for a side like United - established already after a decade and more of success - on the pitch and commercially. Whether its morally "right" how City have done it depends on your view points but spending huge sums of money is the only way to build a league winning side when you start in mid-table.
Click to expand...

£30m for Fernandinho is clearly part of a sensible transfer policy.
 
ghaliboy said:
No I don't for starters. Go and look at the highest transfer fee's for the club and look at their service record if you want proof. You're living in lala land if you think United are going to spend serious money on a 'possibility' signing such as this.


Turn it up you bell end. The markets are completely different for both clubs. City can pay whatever they feel like because they can pay whatever they feel like and it doesn't effect them. United have to be 100% certain they are getting enough of the value back on their money to think about going in for this kind of gamble.

You are illustrating my point by saying 'they pay whatever they felt was needed'. Not many clubs on the planet can really do that in a situation such as this. No 'moaning' no 'bleating' about it. It's a fecking fact. Imagine if United went in for him at 30m and he was shit. People 5 years down the track would be saying how pointless and fat he is and wondering why he is still on the payroll.
Click to expand...

We don't seem to have a problem spending ridiculous cash on forwards and wingers though, do we? We signed Berba for 30million in 09, and that was definitely a panic buy because City was going after him strongly. There were plenty of people at the time who saw that he didn't fit into our style at all, yet we broke our transfer record for him and then sold him to Fulham for 2 million three years later. I just think so many United fans would want us to take a punt on a central midfielder and spend that kind of money. So many of them have been transferred these past few seasons, whether they were bargains or not. If we want to get in a class midfielder who will have an instant impact, we have to spend big. Simple as that.
 
Comsmit said:
Catch yourself on. What is nonsensical about it? Go on tell me I'm interested.

Sometimes in business you are required to over-invest in order to stay ahead of the chasing pack, or indeed catch up with the market leaders. When there is a scarcity of resources (in this case top central midfielders) available, prices go up. Or when you are a club known to have a high level of capital, such as City or United....you are required to pay a premium for the best players.

Some people in on here act as if we have to be so careful with our pennies we can't "risk" £30 million on a proven midfielder who is a full international and operated effectively on numerous occasions in of all competitions....the Champions League. We are fecking raking in the cash and smugly boasting about it aswell. If our Chief Executive so confidently proclaims we can splurge £70-80 million on one player then this type of purchase should not be beyond the club. Then again United appear to want to set valuations in a sellers market so it kind of doesn't ring true when you see the activity we have so far been engaged in. If you want a player that badly you pay up or shut up as far as I'm concerned, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Such a simplistic view really.....

There are so many other factors involved when United decide to buy a player. Age profile, agents, ownership to name just a few. All very relevant factors. United arent like City. We plan long term.

You seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder about Uniteds transfer dealings or the lack there of this summer. Do you expect us to just change club policy overnight because there is a new manager ?
 
ghaliboy said:
No I don't for starters. Go and look at the highest transfer fee's for the club and look at their service record if you want proof. You're living in lala land if you think United are going to spend serious money on a 'possibility' signing such as this.
Click to expand...

What is a "possibility" signing? What do you need as proof he is a really good player? You don't get sure things very often in football you just have to trust in what you see. Have you not watched Champions League foootball over the past 5 years? The guy has been a regular cog in one of the most improved sides on the continent, it's not like he suddenly appeared from obscurity. He was vital to Shaktar hence they demanded a lot of money for him.....good on them. Lala land my arse, Henrik Mkhitaryan just transferred to Dortmund for £25 million, only 5 short of what Fernandinho cost. Now I'm sure you will recognise that Dortmund do not possess the wealth that United do, but they are willing to splash out on a "possibility signing" because they recognise how genuinely fecking good the guy is at football. Just because he comes from Shaktar doesn't mean he is a gamble. There are class players all over Europe who are just not recognised by people who see only the enclosed world of the Premier League and perhaps a few player from Bayern, Barca and Real Madrid.

ghaliboy said:
On fernandiho I saw a bit of him and he looked very tidy and a smart player. Should be a good little buy.
Click to expand...

A good little buy indeed, would have been a good little buy for a club who requires a box-to-box midfield player? Then again if they feel Fabregas is valued at £30 million perhaps not.
 
Decotron said:
Such a simplistic view really.....

There are so many other factors involved when United decide to buy a player. Age profile, agents, ownership to name just a few. All very relevant factors. United arent like City. We plan long term.

You seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder about Uniteds transfer dealings or the lack there of this summer. Do you expect us to just change club policy overnight because there is a new manager ?
Click to expand...

Yes it is a simplistic view, and I make no bones about saying it. You make it sound as if different rules apply when United buy a player....it is the same concept. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I just say it how I see it. If United were truly serious about someone like Fabregas then you ask what Barcelona want, and you get to sit down with the player. It's Barcelona for goodness sake, not Espanyol. If you want a world-class player from a major European rival, one who incidentally has been more successful than you recently, you simply have to show you mean business. Otherwise it is an utter waste of time even bothering. Look at Real, Barca and Bayern over the last few years. Real asked us what we wanted for Ronaldo, and they paid it. Barca asked what Santos wanted for Neymar, and they paid it. Bayern paid 2 buy-out clauses in excess of £30 million because they meant business and wanted the player. All clubs operate under the same conditions as United and they all have differing or similar transfer policies. It's lame to suggest United have more factors to consider. You seem to be finding excuses for their transfer policy.

You don't think City are planning long-term? You have got your head in the clouds mate.
 
It was a bit frustrating watching Fernandinho yesterday. Newcastle were shite, it was one game, etc..yeah, but on that display he looked a very good player and one that would've been ideal for us.

Not that I'm hammering into the club for not signing him by any means.
 
Zen86 said:
£30m for Fernandinho is clearly part of a sensible transfer policy.
Click to expand...

As opposed to £12 million on Nastajic, £6.5 million on Zabaleta, £24 million on Silva, £14 million on Navas, £23 million on Jovetic etc.
 
Comsmit said:
Yes it is a simplistic view, and I make no bones about saying it. You make it sound as if different rules apply when United buy a player....it is the same concept. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I just say it how I see it. If United were truly serious about someone like Fabregas then you ask what Barcelona want, and you get to sit down with the player. It's Barcelona for goodness sake, not Espanyol. If you want a world-class player from a major European rival, one who incidentally has been more successful than you recently, you simply have to show you mean business. Otherwise it is an utter waste of time even bothering. Look at Real, Barca and Bayern over the last few years. Real asked us what we wanted for Ronaldo, and they paid it. Barca asked what Santos wanted for Neymar, and they paid it. Bayern paid 2 buy-out clauses in excess of £30 million because they meant business and wanted the player. All clubs operate under the same conditions as United and they all have differing or similar transfer policies. It's lame to suggest United have more factors to consider.

You don't think City are planning long-term? You have got your head in the clouds mate.
Click to expand...

Obviously im sure they try to but in reality not really.........

12 months ago in the very same position they bought Rodwell for 16million and Garcia 15 million. Dya reckon they are part of their long term plan now? Or are they now in the Scott Sinclair category?
 
Zen86 said:
£30m for Fernandinho is clearly part of a sensible transfer policy.
Click to expand...

We'll see. They've moved two huge earners off the books in Tevez and Ballotelli - and will probably have a better team spirit as a result. This lad looks like a half decent player - and a definate upgrade on Barry. Like last year their business will be judged on where they end up at the end of the season - in the same way that United and Chelsea will be.
 
Decotron said:
Obviously im sure they try to but in reality not really.........

12 months ago in the very same position they bought Rodwell for 16million and Garcia 15 million. Dya reckon they are part of their long term plan now? Or are they now in the Scott Sinclair category?
Click to expand...

In a 50 game season you need more than a first XI - I suspect those players will get games this year. Rodwell is young, he could have a future if he stays injury free.
 
Decotron said:
Obviously im sure they try to but in reality not really.........

12 months ago in the very same position they bought Rodwell for 16million and Garcia 15 million. Dya reckon they are part of their long term plan now? Or are they now in the Scott Sinclair category?
Click to expand...

Thanks for addressing my footnote.

Rodwell is a fecking player but has been plauged by injuries. Sinclair who knows? He was basically a replacement for Adam Johnson and when he did get minutes he didn't really impress. Javi Garcia may prove to be a handy squad player in time.

I guess its not the same as United planning for the future with punts like Obertan, Tosic, Bebe, Buttner etc. I like how you select the obvious players to suit your agenda. Players like Aguero, Silva, Nasri, Dzeko, Nastajic or Jovetic are obviously not the correct age profile or fit into any "long term plan."

Ok then. I suppose the Elite Development Squad will just be pie in the sky aswell.
 
RedRover said:
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying, and I dont see why people are so outraged by City, or any other club spending large sum of money on players, and I've explained why I have that view a number of times.

What we currently have is a competative league - in terms of entertainment the best in years in my view. I like the City and United rivalry, I like Jose being back at Chelsea and it'll be a good season with plenty of twists and turns - that's why I like football and sport in general.

What I see is a lot of hypocritical United fans on here bleating about what City have spent. Nobody was complaining when we bought Veron, or Van Nistelrooy, or Ferdinand, or Rooney, or Roy Keane (british record), Jaap Stam (record for a defender), Henning Berg (british record for a defender) or were in for Alan Shearer at what was then a massive sum of money, or when players at United were getting contracts far and above what other PL clubs could offer (Keane on £70k a week, Ronaldo the first player on £100k plus etc). The fact was very few clubs could compete - so United had it all their own way a lot of the time.

People defend this by saying "the money was all self earned" - but it made little difference because just like Liverpool in the 70's and early 80's one club could buy all the best players and even title rivals were left behind. It wasnt a level playing field, irrespective of the fact that United had every right top spend their money how they saw fit.

What I see now is a lot of fans professing to be concerned about the health of the game and wanting to stop the madness. What they actually want is United to be able to spend huge sums on world class players like Fabregas and Ronaldo, and other clubs not to be able to and thereby return to the old days.

If I were a fan of another club and I saw United spending huge sums - despite being hundreds of millions in debt I'd ask why that was fine but being funded by a rich owner isn't. Bottom line for me - modern football is all about money. United have been the driving force in this country, hence why they're worth so much, they benefit from the PL as a product as much, if not more than any other club - the better the product, the more they make so I have no issue with it. And the holier than thou attitude I find bizzare - we'll win sometimes, lose sometimes, but I wouldnt have it any other way - it'd be boring otherwise.
Click to expand...

Do you just never read people's responses when you post this tripe? Every single one is a shitty excuse used by fans of moneybags clubs trying to excuse the vast damage they've done to the English game, and every single one has been destroyed by myself and plenty of others. I might actually save your post, it has every single bit of nonsense ever said by Chelsea and City fans in one nice, contained pageful of bollocks. I can't be bothered getting on this merry-go-round again, but I will say this: Why would any United fan want to 'return to the old days'? We're more succesful at the moment than we ever have been. Of all fans of real football clubs we have the least to complain about with regards to the oligarchs choking our game to death...
 
Chabon said:
Do you just never read people's responses when you post this tripe? Every single one is a shitty excuse used by fans of moneybags clubs trying to excuse the vast damage they've done to the English game, and every single one has been destroyed by myself and plenty of others. I might actually save your post, it has every single bit of nonsense ever said by Chelsea and City fans in one nice, contained pageful of bollocks. I can't be bothered getting on this merry-go-round again, but I will say this: Why would any United fan want to 'return to the old days'? We're more succesful at the moment than we ever have been. Of all fans of real football clubs we have the least to complain about with regards to the oligarchs choking our game to death...
Click to expand...

You disagree and that's fine - but you highlight the point I'm making in a lot of United fans getting precious and angry - about Chelsea, City, PSG and other clubs - effectively getting angry about modern football as it is - a game all about huge fees, huge wages and making money.

United are no different from any other club - the arguments about "responsible spending" can be turned on their head when you look at how irresponsible the club owners have been in leveraging millions in debt against the club - but ultimately it works as a football club, and United continue to be succesful - as well as profitable. Its an example of modern football being unpalatable, but despite that the game gets bigger and bigger and the money more ridiculous.

You go on as if the transfers I refer to are all myths, or that it isn't a fact that United spent sums of money on players that the Arsenal's and Liverpool's, being traditional title rivals, could only dream of. It happened, and United were succesful. It wasnt all about the money spent but when the club had a bad season the cheque book came out regularly.

As for your last point I agree entirely - that's why I dont see why people are so vitriolic about what any other club is spending. The emergence of Chelsea and City does mark a new dawn in football - one which has been coming since the likes of United, Barca, Real and other European top clubs realised how much money was to be made and that they could become powerhouse businesses and recognisable worldwide. It was only a matter of time once you start down that route that rich foreign investors want a piece of the action.

I don't see what damage has been done to the english game. Wages were daft before City or Chelsea in the UK and around Europe. We have world class players to watch in the PL week in and week out, a league which this year looks like being entertaining - for me it's the most watchable league in the world. Even in Europe the emergence of the petroclubs seems to have made the CL more competitive.

I've heard how the money in football will make it collapse time and gain - people said it when players reached £20k a week, and it's never happened yet. It's get bigger and bigger and the TV money keeps rolling in.
 
Comsmit said:
Thanks for addressing my footnote.

Rodwell is a fecking player but has been plauged by injuries. Sinclair who knows? He was basically a replacement for Adam Johnson and when he did get minutes he didn't really impress. Javi Garcia may prove to be a handy squad player in time.

I guess its not the same as United planning for the future with punts like Obertan, Tosic, Bebe, Buttner etc. I like how you select the obvious players to suit your agenda. Players like Aguero, Silva, Nasri, Dzeko, Nastajic or Jovetic are obviously not the correct age profile or fit into any "long term plan."

Ok then. I suppose the Elite Development Squad will just be pie in the sky aswell.
Click to expand...

Rumour has it that he marched in and was giving it the biggun at City - Mancini didnt like him and he therefore never got a sniff. Heard that from someone who might know what he's talking about,
 
RedRover said:
Rumour has it that he marched in and was giving it the biggun at City - Mancini didnt like him and he therefore never got a sniff. Heard that from someone who might know what he's talking about,
Click to expand...

Interesting. Did seem strange that he simply never featured. Perhaps he had a bit of an inferiority complex when he got there, feeling like he had to act the big feck, when in reality he probably should have got his head down and been humble. Had a good season at Swansea to earn the move aswell.

Fool.
 
Comsmit said:
Interesting. Did seem strange that he simply never featured. Perhaps he had a bit of an inferiority complex when he got there, feeling like he had to act the big feck, when in reality he probably should have got his head down and been humble. Had a good season at Swansea to earn the move aswell.

Fool.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Apparently a very confident young lad - really rubbed Mankini up the wrong way. I don't recall the exact comment but it was something along the lines of him walking into training and giving it "don't worry lads, I'll win you the title back" or something similar. He was kidding about apparently but the manager marked his card.

No idea if it's 100% true - but he never got a look in, nor was he allowed on loan.
 
Mid to lower-table player. Dunno how he ended up at City, Dyer is probably better for feck's sake.
 
RedRover said:
Indeed. Apparently a very confident young lad - really rubbed Mankini up the wrong way. I don't recall the exact comment but it was something along the lines of him walking into training and giving it "don't worry lads, I'll win you the title back" or something similar. He was kidding about apparently but the manager marked his card.

No idea if it's 100% true - but he never got a look in, nor was he allowed on loan.
Click to expand...

He was one thick cnut then, why would he be giving them the title back when they'd already won it the year before.
 
peterstorey said:
Mid to lower-table player. Dunno how he ended up at City, Dyer is probably better for feck's sake.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding me. The man built together with Srna, Willian and Mkhitaryan the spine of a team, which had a really good showing in the CL last season. Anyone who is capable of giving a top class destroyer like Sven Bender (was in good form aswell) a really hard time ranks pretty high in my book.

Seriously, it takes not long to recognize his talent. For 30 Mil pounds certainly overpriced, but undoubtly class.
 
Think he might have been on about Scott Sinclair... Sphaero mate. Its because of something said earlier about City's squad. Agree with your assessment of Fernandinho though, a tad overpriced for sure, but definitely class.

The key for City is they have strengthened their central midfield, United and Chelsea have not. Could be a big difference as the season progresses.
 
Very good debut and has always looked good anytime I have see him in the CL with Shakthar.
 
peterstorey said:
Mid to lower-table player. Dunno how he ended up at City, Dyer is probably better for feck's sake.
Click to expand...


I agree Pete, just don't think he's that great. About Gareth Barry level for me, and that's not bad, but its not great either.
 
Sarni said:
He was one thick cnut then, why would he be giving them the title back when they'd already won it the year before.
Click to expand...

Good point which hadnt occured to me. Perhaps I misunderstood what my pal was on about then - perhaps another example of his "confidence" this season.

The lad who told me is a ref at a decent level and knows a lot of PL refs - seems the top level guys regularly attend meetings with their lower level peers. He goets quite a bit of info and its usually relatively accurate.
 
ghaliboy said:
It's as though you have no clue how United have operated in the market for the last 10 years. But carry on, it's the Fernandinho thread so I'm out.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I know exactly how United have operated in the market over the last 10 years. It isn't really the last 10 years that I am concerned about though....it's the next 10 years.

In a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.