I'm not saying he isn't a problem. I'm saying he's our best option to actually get goals compared to our other attackers. Last time I checked the primary target of an attacker is to get goals and not just run around. Höjlund looks like he is actually running but most of the time it's him running around like a chicken. Our problem for a long time has been a disjointed press, it's not a good press because Höjlund and Bruno runs around and the other team does 2 easy passes and then they have passed around them with ease.
Can't compare that since from an economical point of view you need to add in Höjlunds transfer fee.. That money could have been used to getting an actual Striker and not a young player with "potential". In reality, would we have been so much worse with Ethan Weathly up front instead of Höjlund?
Not really but some of you people need to hear other opinions and takes on things. The current blame on Rashford is to much considering what Ineos is doing to the fans with ticket prices, the foundations for old players, the staff layoffs, ditchering with ETH and then getting Amorin mid season etc. That is where the critique should be aimed primarily.
Should Rashford improve? Ofcourse! But the club should have keept it internal because the current witchhunt is just tanking his value .. You think PSG feels ready to take him on if all they see is bad information
If you check about hojlund fee it shifts between 62m and 74m. The reason being that some journalists add add-ons to it while others don't. Add ons get activated when certain performance milestones are met. I doubt we hit many milestones lately.
On top of that when one spend money on a kid, most is built around potential. The fee is also staggered into X amount of years which means that a 60m fee would probably cost the club 10m a year for 6 years. If the player is sold in the 3rd year for 40m then the club would make a 10m profit
Academy players didn't cost nothing. It required careful scouting at a young age, it required years of development and ample first team experience to refine them into top talent. Few players actually make it and while it's still a profit centre, the profit is so slim that there were many clubs who opted not to invest too much in it. There was a time when United was one of those clubs
Things had changed lately with ffp as youth talent now represent pure profit. That act as an incentive for clubs to sell academy players. That not just Rashy but almost anyone bothered at united and beyond. City for example sold Trafford and Palmer.
Now back to salary. When I was old enough to follow football the fee was the centre of everything. I remember spending weeks discussing shearer 15m fee which in hindsight is ridiculous considering that he was a way better striker then all modern strikers, haaland inc.
That shifted in the EPL post treble. I remember united nearly losing prime Roy Keane on a free because they were so reluctant to break the wage structure. After they were forced to relented, united witnessed a spike in salary increases as everyone gained his salary expectations on Keane (a common phenomenon in football)
That cut both ways. A high earner must perform as a high earner. I was the first to say that a declining Keane was on thin ice and I repeated the same thing when Sancho mental issues came out. In both cases I was vilified for it to the point that my country was insulted for it (all Maltese are aholes). In both cases I was right. A well run club can't afford that his high earner isn't performing.
I think Rashford was pencilled to be sold next summer. He pushed the transfer to be done now so he avoid being tainted by this disastrous season. His Henry winter interview was his crossing the Rubicon moment for him and there's no way he can paddle back. Not that he can.