The club don't really care or need to make a profit on player sales, and in regards to wages, it's all budgeted for since the start of the season. Saving money on wages doesn't mean we get to spend it on players, it probably means we end up paying more tax at the end of the financial year instead.All true.
We peacock in the transfer market, playing like we're tough negotiators and end up having to carry deadweight like Rojo and Romero about.
I don't understand the idea that United behaving like this was good for the club, cos it 'sends out a message.' What message did it send out refusing €10m for Darmian from Milan, only to sell him for less than half to Parma cos nobody would match our original valuation?
We keep making the same mistakes over and over.
When are we going to stop clubs using us and taking players from us on the cheap (even rich clubs like Newcastle)? These c**ts bought Wood for 25m to save their season, and now reluctant to put a fee on a player that might help them stay up.The point is United’s demands are unrealistic and means they will hold onto a player earning £100k a week for 6 months. When a player is surplus to requirements and will leave on a free in 6 months it makes no business senses AT ALL to keep hold of a player. That’s £2.6m on gross wages alone. Had we loaned him to Newcastle we probably could have got £5m on top as a loan fee. These numbers may sounds small for a club like United but if we did this to 5 players a season we don’t actually use we would suddenly have money for a player we do need, and also reduce a bloated squad.
When are we going to stop clubs using us and taking players from us on the cheap (even rich clubs like Newcastle)? These c**ts bought Wood for 25m to save their season, and now reluctant to put a fee on a player that might help them stay up.
We have room to negotiate actually. It is not only our situation, it is theirs, in 6 months Lingard will be free but they will be relegated. They can sign him then and play him in the championship.Woods had a buy out clause and has weakened a relegation rival. It may sound like a lot but Burnley haven’t been able to replace him in the market. Lingard is available on a free in 6 months time so United have very little room to negotiate. £12.5m survival clause is a ridiculous amount of money and I can see why Newcastle aren’t willing to pay.
How are they unrealistic? You telling me Newcastle doesn't have the 12m to pay for Jesse Lingard? Give me a fecking break. Since when is United a charity football club? Why should we give them a player for basically free? Saving wages like that matters when there's less than a year on his contract and Jesse's contract isn't small, but it isn't Alexis Sanchez' either. Newcastle surviving in the PL is worth to them far more to the Saudis the measly 12 million that they wipe their asses with.The point is United’s demands are unrealistic and means they will hold onto a player earning £100k a week for 6 months. When a player is surplus to requirements and will leave on a free in 6 months it makes no business senses AT ALL to keep hold of a player. That’s £2.6m on gross wages alone. Had we loaned him to Newcastle we probably could have got £5m on top as a loan fee. These numbers may sounds small for a club like United but if we did this to 5 players a season we don’t actually use we would suddenly have money for a player we do need, and also reduce a bloated squad.
How are they unrealistic? You telling me Newcastle doesn't have the 12m to pay for Jesse Lingard? Give me a fecking break. Since when is United a charity football club? Why should we give them a player for basically free? Saving wages like that matters when there's less than a year on his contract and Jesse's contract isn't small, but it isn't Alexis Sanchez' either. Newcastle surviving in the PL is worth to them far more to the Saudis the measly 12 million that they wipe their asses with.
These are signs that United are starting to act like a serious club rather than the butt of all jokes. Pay up or feck off.
Better he walk on a free than on a measly sum. What's saving 2.4 million going to do for the clubanyway? Literally nothing. It'll probably just be a nice bonus for the Glazers' new yacht. Not only that, but we're not loaning him to a different league, we're loaning him to a future PL rival who is under threat of relegation (which would be good for us if they go down). Why should we do them basically a favor? What does this club gain out of it? Nothing. It's not like the Martial situation were we hope that he'd prop up some value for sale in the future. We can't sell Jesse. We have nothing to gain from this loan apart from a measly sum. Even 12 million is nothing amazing, but at least it'll not be a huge loss. But basically gifting him because we like little Jesse so much (the guy that fecked us by refusing to leave or sign a new contract) should be out of the questionDon't disagree with you generally we've become a soft club and need to toughen up.
However the Lingard situation isn't the hill is die upon. If he will walk for free in a few months then the wages saved is like a fee for me.
If we can get a few million on top that's a bonus right now surely? Alternative is we pay 100k plus a week for 6 months and he goes anyway. Probably with a signing on fee and laughing all the way to the bank
Don't disagree with you generally we've become a soft club and need to toughen up.
However the Lingard situation isn't the hill is die upon. If he will walk for free in a few months then the wages saved is like a fee for me.
If we can get a few million on top that's a bonus right now surely? Alternative is we pay 100k plus a week for 6 months and he goes anyway. Probably with a signing on fee and laughing all the way to the bank
Oh he bleeds United like I bleed Liverpool.Can we propose selling him to Newcastle for 5M or something? I'm sure Newcastle will bite, but let's see what this homegrown lad who supposedly bleeds United does.
Me too. I am having party when he does, y'all are invited.I'll be glad when this pillow feck has gone.
I very much doubt the Jesse situation has anything to do with the manager, interim or otherwise.Kanchelskis was a decent player, scored few, helped United reach FA Cup and won it... then he left the club. End of story.
United have been parting ways with likes of Stam, Keano or Van Nistelrooy in much more heated atmosphere. Nobody lamented that much after them despite them being key players, especially SAF and his staff who were focused 100% on the job no matter the circumstances.
Seriously, why the feck we still talk about Lingard in 2022. Why it's still a topic. Let him go and let's move on. I'm so fed up with these pub level stories suggesting the supposed atmosphere around the club.
Media are milking it like we're selling Beckham to Real Madrid. It's a player who we supposed to clear out in order for talented ones to come in and refresh things. Nothing less, nothing more.
BTW when Ralf moves upstairs, can some manager who didn't lost his balls in the process come in the summer and finally stop this circus ?
How are they unrealistic? You telling me Newcastle doesn't have the 12m to pay for Jesse Lingard? Give me a fecking break. Since when is United a charity football club? Why should we give them a player for basically free? Saving wages like that matters when there's less than a year on his contract and Jesse's contract isn't small, but it isn't Alexis Sanchez' either. Newcastle surviving in the PL is worth to them far more to the Saudis the measly 12 million that they wipe their asses with.
These are signs that United are starting to act like a serious club rather than the butt of all jokes. Pay up or feck off.
Better he walk on a free than on a measly sum. What's saving 2.4 million going to do for the clubanyway? Literally nothing. It'll probably just be a nice bonus for the Glazers' new yacht. Not only that, but we're not loaning him to a different league, we're loaning him to a future PL rival who is under threat of relegation (which would be good for us if they go down). Why should we do them basically a favor? What does this club gain out of it? Nothing. It's not like the Martial situation were we hope that he'd prop up some value for sale in the future. We can't sell Jesse. We have nothing to gain from this loan apart from a measly sum. Even 12 million is nothing amazing, but at least it'll not be a huge loss. But basically gifting him because we like little Jesse so much (the guy that fecked us by refusing to leave or sign a new contract) should be out of the question
Manager can and should deal with this circus. SAF used to expose and punish journos for stirring absurd stories and was fairly quick in dealing with players and their uncertain future or questionable motivation.I very much doubt the Jesse situation has anything to do with the manager, interim or otherwise.
Can we propose selling him to Newcastle for 5M or something? I'm sure Newcastle will bite, but let's see what this homegrown lad who supposedly bleeds United does.
He is on too high a wage and just a good shot stopper.What's de gea done? Apart from the Madrid shit years ago, don't think I've heard him/his camp say anything bad.
We did propose a permanent deal and Newcastle met the terms, Jesse was the one who vetoed it and now wants to cry about unfair treatment. He was happy to linger and run his contract down but Newcastle are offering him a fat bonus on top of his wages to go bail them out for a few months so he wants to have that and still get to cash in on a free in the summer. He is being greedy and getting what he deserves.
Go on ya blasphemous piece of *#$%\£~>!!!!!!!Kanchelskis was a decent player, scored few, helped United reach FA Cup and won it... then he left the club. End of story.
The point is United’s demands are unrealistic and means they will hold onto a player earning £100k a week for 6 months. When a player is surplus to requirements and will leave on a free in 6 months it makes no business senses AT ALL to keep hold of a player. That’s £2.6m on gross wages alone. Had we loaned him to Newcastle we probably could have got £5m on top as a loan fee. These numbers may sounds small for a club like United but if we did this to 5 players a season we don’t actually use we would suddenly have money for a player we do need, and also reduce a bloated squad.
The club’s position clearly contradicts your supposition. The club can clearly sustain Lingard’s salary and he can be cover for all the competitions we are in. He is leaving on a free in 6 months as you say so we will lose him for nothing anyway. If Newcastle is desperate enough then they need to pay a premium to bring Lingard in. We have been played way too many times in recent years in the transfer market. Lingard can feel hard done by in a way and I sympathise but have no issue with the club playing hardball with Newcastle.
When have you heard of a loan deal with a loan fee in excess of £10m? It’s a 6 month loan for an average player, that we don’t even use. I get United have had their trousers down in the market but they also have to be sensible. Does it make any sense to repeat the Romero situation? In a good year the clubs profits are about £30m, so suggesting a few millions doesn’t matter is absolute rubbish.
Me too. I am having party when he does, y'all are invited.
Go on ya blasphemous piece of *#$%\£~>!!!!!!!
We're not known for our intelligent decisions in the transfer market.Crazy how he wasn’t sold when his stock was high after that West Ham loan. What’s the point of keeping him on and doing nothing only to leave on a free?
These are signs that United are starting to act like a serious club rather than the butt of all jokes. Pay up or feck off.