Jack Grealish / signs new 5 year contract

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fracture90 said:
So a backup?
Click to expand...

Not a backup.

Some games require different play-styles, each team plays different.

For a team that requires more ball retention you may go for Grealish over other players, if Bruno is being too direct at times having a ball carrier like Grealish might be better.

It depends on things like fixture congestion, who has played more recently, the opposition, is it a home game or an away game. Does the opposition team struggle against counter attacks, quicker passing, or does the team need someone to run at players. You need variation in a team.

There's the FA Cup, Carabao Cup, Champions League and the PL, there are midweek games pretty much every week. Each player can still play 40 games a season.

It's a big club, we're not talking 'a back-up', we are speaking about challenging on all fronts. The whole point is to be a footballing superpower and to go for everything possible, not just fall out of all competitions and focus on the league.

The target should be the CL, the league but also the treble.

You don't win an FA Cup, the Carabao Cup, the CL and the PL and call some of the players back ups, you enjoy the silverware because they are players of the club.

Nobody would call Solskjaer, Sherringham, Yorke or Cole 'back-ups' when they are rotated.

The same with Neville, Evra, Ferdinand, Brown, Hargreaves, Vidic, Evans, they were all capable of contributing to the team and win a CL and the league, none of them were back-ups.

It's a completely silly notion, there isn't a divide between the players of 'I'm a starting player, I'm a sub' everyone wants to play, everyone should fight to be in the next games starting XI, everyone should be good enough to play, if one player is sharper in training or a bit fitter that week they should play.

Grealish is not a backup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fortitude
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
Alot of people here will agree that Chelsea spending 60m on Chillwell when there are other solid cheaper options like Reguilon and Tagliafico is a dumb move. It's the same with Grealish
Click to expand...
We shouldn’t be paying £80m for him but £50m would be palpable. I believe it will be £55m with add ons totalling £70m.

To be honest I’m at the point where if the club is confident it’s a sound investment I’ll trust them to not pay over the odds or at least spend within our means.

That said the little I know about this it’s not guaranteed that United will be the destination if/when he leaves.
 
TheNewEra said:
Not a backup.

Some games require different play-styles, each team plays different.

For a team that requires more ball retention you may go for Grealish over other players, if Bruno is being too direct at times having a ball carrier like Grealish might be better.

It depends on things like fixture congestion, who has played more recently, the opposition, is it a home game or an away game. Does the opposition team struggle against counter attacks, quicker passing, or does the team need someone to run at players. You need variation in a team.

There's the FA Cup, Carabao Cup, Champions League and the PL, there are midweek games pretty much every week. Each player can still play 40 games a season.

It's a big club, we're not talking 'a back-up', we are speaking about challenging on all fronts. The whole point is to be a footballing superpower and to go for everything possible, not just fall out of all competitions and focus on the league.

The target should be the CL, the league but also the treble.

You don't win an FA Cup, the Carabao Cup, the CL and the PL and call some of the players back ups, you enjoy the silverware because they are players of the club.

Nobody would call Solskjaer, Sherringham, Yorke or Cole 'back-ups' when they are rotated.

The same with Neville, Evra, Ferdinand, Brown, Hargreaves, Vidic, Evans, they were all capable of contributing to the team and win a CL and the league, none of them were back-ups.

It's a completely silly notion, there isn't a divide between the players of 'I'm a starting player, I'm a sub' everyone wants to play, everyone should fight to be in the next games starting XI, everyone should be good enough to play, if one player is sharper in training or a bit fitter that week they should play.

Grealish is not a backup.
Click to expand...
But he will come off the bench until those certain games arrive, right?
 
TheNewEra said:
Not a backup.

Some games require different play-styles, each team plays different.

For a team that requires more ball retention you may go for Grealish over other players, if Bruno is being too direct at times having a ball carrier like Grealish might be better.

It depends on things like fixture congestion, who has played more recently, the opposition, is it a home game or an away game. Does the opposition team struggle against counter attacks, quicker passing, or does the team need someone to run at players. You need variation in a team.

There's the FA Cup, Carabao Cup, Champions League and the PL, there are midweek games pretty much every week. Each player can still play 40 games a season.

It's a big club, we're not talking 'a back-up', we are speaking about challenging on all fronts. The whole point is to be a footballing superpower and to go for everything possible, not just fall out of all competitions and focus on the league.

The target should be the CL, the league but also the treble.

You don't win an FA Cup, the Carabao Cup, the CL and the PL and call some of the players back ups, you enjoy the silverware because they are players of the club.

Nobody would call Solskjaer, Sherringham, Yorke or Cole 'back-ups' when they are rotated.

The same with Neville, Evra, Ferdinand, Brown, Hargreaves, Vidic, Evans, they were all capable of contributing to the team and win a CL and the league, none of them were back-ups.

It's a completely silly notion, there isn't a divide between the players of 'I'm a starting player, I'm a sub' everyone wants to play, everyone should fight to be in the next games starting XI, everyone should be good enough to play, if one player is sharper in training or a bit fitter that week they should play.

Grealish is not a backup.
Click to expand...
Ahh ok I get you so he’d be a rotation option depending on the opponent.

He absolutely will be a back up and Solskjaer and a Sherringham were absolutely back up too. Back up isn’t an insult.
 
Fracture90 said:
City also has unlimited funds, do we?
Click to expand...
It's literally only City I've seen do this. No other club could sign Ake for 40m to be backup and still looking to sign Koulibaly or sign Cancelo when they already have Walker. Treating reality like FM. Funny enough if someone suggested months ago that we spend 60m on Grealish to be rotation, the reply would have been "this isn't FM". I'm surprised people now think we have the funds to get Sancho, spend 60m + on Grealish and still get a CB
 
BenitoSTARR said:
Ahh ok I get you so he’d be a rotation option depending on the opponent.

He absolutely will be a back up and Solskjaer and a Sherringham were absolutely back up too. Back up isn’t an insult.
Click to expand...
Don't call Grealish backup, call him a rotational player. People will react less
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
It's literally only City I've seen do this. No other club could sign Ake for 40m to be backup and still looking to sign Koulibaly or sign Cancelo when they already have Walker. Treating reality like FM. Funny enough if someone suggested months ago that we spend 60m on Grealish to be rotation, the reply would have been "this isn't FM". I'm surprised people now think we have the funds to get Sancho, spend 60m + on Grealish and still get a CB
Click to expand...
Yeah, the cnuts.
 
Fracture90 said:
But he will come off the bench until those certain games arrive, right?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's always a case of coming off the bench.

Bruno/Matic/Pogba for instance can have a dip in form at some point, and Grealish for example could be part of an unbeaten team, Solskjaer may opt to keep with the winning team like recently.

The whole point is that players fight for their place in the team, again challenging on all fronts.

A club as big as Manchester United should be winning a trophy a year minimum.

The reality as we all know last season towards the end was laboured, because it was hard to bring in McT, Fred or Lingard just due to the fact they aren't at the same level.

When you know players are tired of course it would be nice to have options to freshen the team up too, and perhaps those players miss a game or two in that run (which again isn't a back-up) because you want to maintain the same level of performance throughout a season.

There'll be games where Pogba, Bruno come off the bench too, it doesn't mean they are back-up players either.

I really don't see it as back-ups when you are asking players to all play 40 games a season.

Every player needs to play their part, they are part of a squad.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
We shouldn’t be paying £80m for him but £50m would be palpable. I believe it will be £55m with add ons totalling £70m.

To be honest I’m at the point where if the club is confident it’s a sound investment I’ll trust them to not pay over the odds or at least spend within our means.

That said the little I know about this it’s not guaranteed that United will be the destination if/when he leaves.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't think the club will get Grealish if it affects our transfer plan. Stone Ducker Hirst have all said we want Sancho and a CB so that's our priority. If we get Grealish it would be after we get those two positions sorted. And a Sancho+CB+Grealish signing JS a very good window
 
TheNewEra said:
I don't think it's always a case of coming off the bench.

Bruno/Matic/Pogba for instance can have a dip in form at some point, and Grealish for example could be part of an unbeaten team, Solskjaer may opt to keep with the winning team like recently.

The whole point is that players fight for their place in the team, again challenging on all fronts.

A club as big as Manchester United should be winning a trophy a year minimum.

The reality as we all know last season towards the end was laboured, because it was hard to bring in McT, Fred or Lingard just due to the fact they aren't at the same level.

When you know players are tired of course it would be nice to have options to freshen the team up too, and perhaps those players miss a game or two in that run (which again isn't a back-up) because you want to maintain the same level of performance throughout a season.

There'll be games where Pogba, Bruno come off the bench too, it doesn't mean they are back-up players either.

I really don't see it as back-ups when you are asking players to all play 40 games a season.

Every player needs to play their part, they are part of a squad.
Click to expand...
Mate you're just squirming and deflecting so that you don't have to admit he'll be a backup.

Relax, being a backup isn't bad and Terry/Ole were backups to Cole and Yorke, to say otherwise is just foolish.
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
Genuine question but did Fergie ever spend the equivalent of 60-80m in those days for a player to be rotation?
Click to expand...
No, but it's a redundant question because 1) Jack Grealish wouldn't be used for rotation alone. He'd start a lot of games and 2) those were different times
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
Genuine question but did Fergie ever spend the equivalent of 60-80m in those days for a player to be rotation?
Click to expand...
Best example I can think of is Veron. As he came into a team with Scholes and Keane still both in their prime.

But then again, the plan was for Scholes to become a shadow striker and Veron and Keane to be the midfield 2. It just didn't work out.
 
Fracture90 said:
Mate you're just squirming and deflecting so that you don't have to admit he'll be a backup.

Relax, being a backup isn't bad and Terry/Ole were backups to Cole and Yorke, to say otherwise is just foolish.
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't see it as a back-up that's why, I'm not deflecting.

If the ambition was to compete for one trophy he would certainly be a back-up, but there are 4 trophies to challenge for, and I can see him playing around 40% of the minutes of the EPL too.

I don't see Greenwood as a back-up either, but he will most likely rotate just as much as Grealish will.
 
TheNewEra said:
I genuinely don't see it as a back-up that's why, I'm not deflecting.

If the ambition was to compete for one trophy he would certainly be a back-up, but there are 4 trophies to challenge for, and I can see him playing around 40% of the minutes of the EPL too.

I don't see Greenwood as a back-up either, but he will most likely rotate just as much as Grealish will.
Click to expand...
Sure i get that it's your point of view, but you've got your regular starters, players you usually go to and you have your squad players that are backup, players you trust to come off the bench and start in certain games be it due to injuries or poor form, it's irrelevant.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Best example I can think of is Veron. As he came into a team with Scholes and Keane still both in their prime.

But then again, the plan was for Scholes to become a shadow striker and Veron and Keane to be the midfield 2. It just didn't work out.
Click to expand...

Berbatov? Came into a squad with Rooney, Saha, Tevez (and Ronaldo). Played a lot in his first season tbf, but hard to say he was bought as an upgrade on any of our forwards at the time. Anderson and Hargreaves were both picked up for large fees despite the fact we'd just signed Carrick the year before and hard Scholes and Fletcher too.
 
SmashedHombre said:
Berbatov? Came into a squad with Rooney, Saha, Tevez (and Ronaldo). Played a lot in his first season tbf, but hard to say he was bought as an upgrade on any of our forwards at the time. Anderson and Hargreaves were both picked up for large fees despite the fact we'd just signed Carrick the year before and hard Scholes and Fletcher too.
Click to expand...
When Berbatov was bought, iirc, Saha was already set to leave for Everton and the whole Tevez and his permanent contract was a huge clusterfeck. Also Ronaldo was forcing his move to Madrid.
 
VP89 said:
No, but it's a redundant question because 1) Jack Grealish wouldn't be used for rotation alone. He'd start a lot of games and 2) those were different times
Click to expand...
It's not redundant though. If spending this big on a player like Grealish when we already have top class players ln his position was a thing we used to do then I think people should be more open to signing Grealish.

Also Grealish is absolutely rotation. Using your point, If he's starting alot of games then whoever is on the bench is the one being rotated no? You could say Pogba Bruno Rashford and Grealish are all rotational players since Grealish can start in place for any of them and vice versa
 
Last edited:
SmashedHombre said:
Berbatov? Came into a squad with Rooney, Saha, Tevez (and Ronaldo). Played a lot in his first season tbf, but hard to say he was bought as an upgrade on any of our forwards at the time. Anderson and Hargreaves were both picked up for large fees despite the fact we'd just signed Carrick the year before and hard Scholes and Fletcher too.
Click to expand...
The original idea is for Berba to be the main starter.

Fergie quickly realized he's not good enough for that.
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
It's not redundant though. If spending this big on a player like Grealish when we already have top class players ln his position was a thing we used to do then I think people should be more open to signing Grealish.

Also Grealish is absolutely rotation. If he's starting alot of games then whoever is on the bench is the one being rotated no? You could say Pogba Bruno Rashford and Grealish are all rotational players since Grealish can start in place for any of them and vice versa
Click to expand...
Grealish if brought in will play a key role in our campaign, rather than that of a generic squad player. That's what I meant by rotational or not. I'd look to Fred/McTominay as more rotational than Grealish (were he to join of course).

If we were to word it another way, Grealish would likely play 30+ games for us, and that would be worth a £50-60m spend.
 
meamth said:
Absolutely, pretty sure we need to sell first before we can sign Grealish, and then we have a very flexible and fluid attack to rotate around.

Attack consisting of Martial, Rashford, Sancho, Greenwood and Grealish is terrifying.

EDIT:
Look at that English flair goodness! :lol: :drool:
Click to expand...

Yeah there is absolutely no doubt that we will need to sell some defenders and Lingard to both make space in the squad and raise money first.
 
ManRed said:
We need to sell atleast 2 from Andreas, Juan and Jesse before we can go and make this transfer. We are overstocked in the position with mediocre players and need to sell before we buy.

There is no need to rush this transfer and can be completed next month. I doubt any other club will be in for him or will make him a priority signing in the current transfer market.
Click to expand...

Yeah unless really Arsenal press for him after he returns from holiday then we have plenty of time with this one. Sounds like they are more interested in Coutinho though but could be smokescreen.
 
VP89 said:
Grealish if brought in will play a key role in our campaign, rather than that of a generic squad player. That's what I meant by rotational or not. I'd look to Fred/McTominay as more rotational than Grealish (were he to join of course).

If we were to word it another way, Grealish would likely play 30+ games for us, and that would be worth a £50-60m spend.
Click to expand...
We can both have different definitions of a rotational player

In my opinion whichever player that is bought without the intentions of him being the first name on the team sheet then he's either one for the future or rotation. You could say there are different levels of rotational players, Ighalo, Lingard, Pereira are at the lowest level, Mctominay, Fred are at the normal level, Grealish and Greenwood should be at the highest level.

In the end If I was to describe Grealish role in the team I would call him a rotational player rather than give a long epistle of how he's there to compete for places
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
Yeah I don't think the club will get Grealish if it affects our transfer plan. Stone Ducker Hirst have all said we want Sancho and a CB so that's our priority. If we get Grealish it would be after we get those two positions sorted. And a Sancho+CB+Grealish signing JS a very good window
Click to expand...

Yeah it does look very much that Sancho & CB are the top priorities in this window. I could still see us making a move for him later on though if we get any kind of encouragement.
 
Even during the game, the starting XI needs to be subbed. And who is on our bench that can make the difference?
And there will be times someone get injured (with our team, it's as sure as the sun rises from the east) for long period of time. There will be times when we need to play 3 games in a week.

He's English and still young-ish also. If in the future this doesn't work for both parties, we'd easily recoup our investment.
 


This came from a podcast he was speaking on earlier today,interesting he also agrees that Jack wouldn't be a starter in this team and mentions Pogba staying could also have changed our thought process.
 
Last edited:
Well of course they'll let him go if someone pays the 80m
 
charlenefan said:
Well of course they'll let him go if someone pays the 80m
Click to expand...

No one will pay the £80m upfront but could see Utd doing a deal similarly structured to Sancho or something along the lines of £55m plus addons type thing.
 
Did any of the top tier journalist confirmed our interest in Grealish??

Because Utd have been hardly linked with him after the lockdown.
 
ehsanul said:
Did any of the top tier journalist confirmed our interest in Grealish??

Because Utd have been hardly linked with him after the lockdown.
Click to expand...

Best I can offer you is Gregg Evans (Villa correspondent for Athletic) talking about him
 
croadyman said:
How would you see the cost being structured just out of interest?
Click to expand...
Said previously I don’t see him moving for less than £55m now upfront plus add ons getting close to £70m.

Look at it from Villas point of view. Sell for £40m and it’ll cost you at least £20-30m to replace him with anyone worthwhile. So they need to be able to bring in significant quality in a few positions for it to be worth while.

There is an agreement and with Grealish returning from holiday soon I’d imagine more will pipe up.

I was hopeful of a bargain before they stayed up.

ehsanul said:
Did any of the top tier journalist confirmed our interest in Grealish??

Because Utd have been hardly linked with him after the lockdown.
Click to expand...
No. I still think he’ll leave.
 
Expect some more stories about Grealish with these negative Sancho briefs tonight
 
Status
Not open for further replies.