I agree with you, but I think he becomes worthy the minute we decide he should be our keeper. We actually paid quite a bit (relatively) for Dave in the first place didn't we? Anyway my point is that if (and it's obviously a big if) we sell Dave and want Lloris, then Lloris is instantly worth whatever we need to pay for him, if it works out then nobody will give a hoot about how much he cost.
Hugo Lloris
- Thread starter Sean_RedDevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
I agree with you, but I think he becomes worthy the minute we decide he should be our keeper. We actually paid quite a bit (relatively) for Dave in the first place didn't we? Anyway my point is that if (and it's obviously a big if) we sell Dave and want Lloris, then Lloris is instantly worth whatever we need to pay for him, if it works out then nobody will give a hoot about how much he cost.
But its a different situation regarding De Gea. The only reason we are selling him for 20m is because of his contract situation. If he had more than a year left, then easily he will be worth closer to 40m.
Why not? Or if it wasn't legally enforceable, then Levy would just wait until the last hour of the last day of the window before selling to Lloris to RM, just to be sure that wasn't sufficient time left for some shady Lloris-De Gea swap deal to take place. Either way, there's no way that Lloris is going to United this summer. But if you want to waste your time trying - and meanwhile miss out on more realistic replacements for De Gea - then I'm quite sure Levy would be happy to sit back and watch.
I thought you would of learned your lesson after the Bale thread and all your "Levy would never sell Bale, not even for 100mil" posts.
Aren't you a lawyer?
I am. It is not enforcable.
I thought you were a professor.
I know a good few but no.
The policy remains as it became after Berbatov. No sale to a Prem club. If a non-Prem club offers enough money and the player wants to go then that's a different kettle of fish.
I would have thought you'd learnt this lesson by now after all the time wasted in fruitless pursuit of both Modric and Bale.
That was when you had a pretty good team which was an actual contender for a top 4 spot every season. Now your squad has regressed and you are pretty much Europa league contenders.
It would of been very interesting to see how fruitless it would of actually been if Madrid didn't come in for Bale at the last minute.
How can a keeper who makes as many mistakes as Lloris be considered one of the world's best, it just astounds me. World record fees being banded about ffs the mind boggles.
It's strange how United have been Chelsea's main competitor these past 10 years but youse seem to have a bigger rivalry/hatred for Liverpool and Arsenal. Mourinho hates them both with a passion
Whats the reasoning behind this policy? I can see why you wouldn't sell to Liverpool but its not like you are competing with United?
I don't think we should go for Lloris. That clause stuff is obviously nonsense so we'd get fleeced by Levy for sure. Given the fact we'd be desperate for a new keeper, and he knows we've got loads of cash, he'd be asking for £40 mill. Just not worth it.
Regardless, it doesn't change the club's policy. The club's finances remain very healthy - thus for a player in demand like Lloris we can afford to pick and choose who we might sell to and who we won't .... IF Lloris wants to leave. As I've said, if United want to waste their time on this then that's their lookout.
Lloris to Man Utd would be applauded, weakens both teams.
We finished above you last season and it's not written in stone that we can't do so again next season. Like all clubs, Spurs have their own ambitions - ambitions that in our case are not helped by selling star players to clubs that have generally finished above us in the table. Besides, IF we sell we can get top dollar outside of the Prem, so it's not as if we lose money in the process.
But last season is a complete anomaly in the trend. I'm not sure when Spurs finished above United before that but I guess it was probably in the 80s? It's strange that we can do business with Chelsea and Arsenal....but Spurs see us as direct competition and refuse.
United have not been singled out. Spurs won't sell a star player to any club from Liverpool upwards ... and none of the clubs below could afford to buy in any case. Chelsea sold you Mata because they didn't especially want him and - correctly as it's proved - did not regard you as a particular threat to their league position.
As for RvP, I can't recall the circumstances. Wasn't he near to his contract end at Arsenal and so, in the absence of better offers from outside the Prem they had to sell or lose out on a lot of money? Or have I got that wrong?
Last edited:
Could you put that Hazard to Unite d thing in spoilers? You just ruined the transfer window for me.
Yeah RVP was in his final year and wanted out. Think Juventus may have been interested too but he wanted to come to United.
Let's say Lamela becomes amazing and he wants to leave Spurs but Madrid/Barca are well stocked in that position and only United are willing to pay the money Spurs want...do you think you would sell in such circumstances?
That's the key, though. Obviously, if a Spurs player plays too well to stay at Spurs and can be sold to a Spanish side for 30 million or to a Prem team for 32 million, then sure, take the 30 from Spain.
With Modric, it's said Chelsea offered 10 million more pounds than Madrid did. Probably made the right decision there, even though you may not finish above Chelsea until Luka Modric Jr. has retired.
But what if Chelsea had offered 5 million more and Madrid 5 million less? Would 20 million pounds have been worth not strengthening a rival who could just go ahead and spend the money on a great player from abroad (which might be riskier than a Prem proven player like Modric, but you're not getting shite for that 40 million in all likelihood)?
It should be a case by case decision, not some idiotically rigid policy.
I meant Mata, not Hazard, sorry. As for Lamela, the answer is no, he wouldn't be sold to United in those circumstances.
If Chelsea had offered 5 million more and Madrid 5 million less and so Spurs had refused to sell to RM at that price, then the chances are that either RM would have caved in and upped their bid or some other non-Prem club would have come in with a higher offer. Failing that, Modric would have been forced to stay.
On ESPN: United don't want to pay over the odds for Lloris
You should realize GlastonSpur has no idea about any such policy and just says what he thinks exists.
This is not the case ... but of course you are free to believe what you want.
I'd rather have krul
Personally he doesn't quite have that aura and calmness of some of the best keepers.
Forgetting all of the Glaston bullshit - we shouldn't even be in for him. Not good enough IMO
He's definitely a professor of football. Maybe he's a professor of law too?
Sneaking suspicion LvG would as well.
I like him as a keeper, but I don't think he has that calmness that you mentioned, nor do I think he's a particularly great organiser of his penalty box. If we somehow managed to sign him I think we'd plenty of defensive dicking around.
If that's the case then Valdes will be our starter. Because Krul is nowhere near good enough for a team of our size. He has massive weakness, particularly in terms of his use of the ball and being proactive in coming off his line for the ball.
his whole demeanor and auro reminds me of a certain other former United/Dutch keeper
that being said, my first choice would still be Cech
IF DDG leaves
I don't think he's that far off to be honest. He's a good keeper on sinking ship at the moment, which doesn't portray him in a particularly good light.
Please no Handovic. Either one of Cech, Valdes or Lloris to take over if DDG leaves.
Obviously. It's a forum. We're arguing about what teams should do. I was just writing why I think not selling to rivals under any circumstances is a bad policy.
Why so, when he was behind Cillessen in the pecking order at the last world cup?
As for Lloris, it seems naive to sign a five year contract with Levy without insisting on release clause.
I think LvG would go for a Dutch option, and since Krul is Prem proven, he may give him a close look.