Pratt

[Neil Thomson]

The dust may have long settled on the Premiership season, but Sir Alex Ferguson is doing his best to kick it up again.
Reflecting on United's barren campaign, the Manchester United manager today spoke of his regret at missing out on the signing of West Ham's Paolo di Canio, and took another sideswipe at ostracised striker Dwight Yorke at the same time.

Ferguson had been keen to sign di Canio from West Ham in January, but was forced to pull the plug on the deal when Yorke refused to join Middlesbrough. The former Trinidad and Tobago striker has not played for United since.

"I was very, very keen on di Canio," he said on MUTV. "I think Paolo's one of the best players in the Premier League.

"I think he would have been a fantastic player to bring in at that time because Diego Forlan was young. He would have added that little bit extra because he's a fantastic player.

"I wanted that extra player with experience, like Paolo, who would have given us a terrific lift, but it didn't materialise because I couldn't sell Dwight Yorke.

"Dwight wouldn't go to Middlesbrough, which is something I'm sure he regrets now.

"Between him and his agent they asked for a terrible amount of money, which Steve McClaren quite rightly wasn't prepared to pay.

"That deal floundered and the Paolo di Canio deal also floundered."

 

[Rory 7]

David Pratt <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />
I don't know. The Yorke situation is a disaster really. I don't think he wants to play for the club anymore, now who's the Pratt?

 

[Julian Denny]

The whole Di Canio issue remains a puzzle to me. If SAF wanted him and United could agree terms then he should have got him. To link his signing to the departure of Yorke was ridiculous. Presumably the Plc would not countenance Di Canio whilst Yorke refused to go. The upshot of all this was that Di Canio did not arrive and we were left short of strikers for the rest of the season. Who knows - Di Canio could have provided that extra spark needed in the final crucial games. Certainly SAF thought so.

Altogether a ridiculous and costly situation for which presumambly the Plc are entirely responsible.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by Julian Denny:
<strong>The whole Di Canio issue remains a puzzle to me. If SAF wanted him and United could agree terms then he should have got him. To link his signing to the departure of Yorke was ridiculous. Presumably the Plc would not countenance Di Canio whilst Yorke refused to go. The upshot of all this was that Di Canio did not arrive and we were left short of strikers for the rest of the season. Who knows - Di Canio could have provided that extra spark needed in the final crucial games. Certainly SAF thought so.

Altogether a ridiculous and costly situation for which presumambly the Plc are entirely responsible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed, stupid thinking by the Plc. If anything getting him would have forced Yorke out sooner.

 

[Amir]

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
Agreed, stupid thinking by the Plc. If anything getting him would have forced Yorke out sooner.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In 97/8 Fergie wanted to sign Ortega for the second half of the season to get a bit more spark when we needed it. PLC refused to accept Valencia's demands (they wanted 1m for the loan, another 7m if we wanted to make the deal permanent).

God only knows how much the business side of United has hampered the footballing side.

 

[Travis Bickle]

Originally posted by Julian Denny:
<strong>.

Altogether a ridiculous and costly situation for which presumambly the Plc are entirely responsible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Seems like Fergie thinks it was Disco's fault. The PLC presumably didn't want another 30+ striker on the books, and wanted Disco offloaded before Di Canio came.

Fergie at the time said "Yorke was part of his plans". I suspect he'd told Disco in no uncertain terms that he was history, but Yorke decided to stay.

I suspect Fergie is giving a message to Disco to get out now.

 

[dicko]

How much would PDC cost? I think 3 million was being quoted. This is peanuts. One spark could have won either game against Bayer or kept us in the hunt for the league. Considering how close we went questions must be asked about refusal to fund a relatively small buy.

I am sure Fergie would have told Dwight and the board what the real situation was (Yorke won't play so we are one striker short). I hope the PLC realise their mistake and don't let such stupidity happen again. Wishful thinking!

 

[Lover of Football]

Im not a fan of the Plc however they do have a legal obligation to the shareholders to act in a responsible manner.Every club has to balance the books you cannot keep signing players and pay a player 30 grand a week for doing nothing.Im sure if Yorke had gone DiCaneo would have signed.Dont blame the Plc for this one.Oh and I believe Yorke will sit out his contract and move on a Bosman.

 

[dicko]

Originally posted by Lover of Football:
<strong>Im not a fan of the Plc however they do have a legal obligation to the shareholders to act in a responsible manner.Every club has to balance the books you cannot keep signing players and pay a player 30 grand a week for doing nothing.Im sure if Yorke had gone DiCaneo would have signed.Dont blame the Plc for this one.Oh and I believe Yorke will sit out his contract and move on a Bosman.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wouldn't be surprised if Yorke sits out (discos out?) his contract before moving on a Bosman or just retires. That is irrelevant. Without a fourth striker we failed to reach the CL final and finished in the league. You could argue that Fergie should have used Yorke but I think the PLC and Yorke would have been told quite clearly that he would not play. Even I could argue that he was a danger to team harmony and discipline, Fergie would have much more ammunition and decides the team. Buying Di Canio might even have embarassed Yorke out. The PLC could have paid the small amount for Di Canio without risking bancrupcy.

 

[uranushk1]

Originally posted by dicko:
<strong>

Wouldn't be surprised if Yorke sits out (discos out?) his contract before moving on a Bosman or just retires. That is irrelevant. Without a fourth striker we failed to reach the CL final and finished in the league. You could argue that Fergie should have used Yorke but I think the PLC and Yorke would have been told quite clearly that he would not play. Even I could argue that he was a danger to team harmony and discipline, Fergie would have much more ammunition and decides the team. Buying Di Canio might even have embarassed Yorke out. The PLC could have paid the small amount for Di Canio without risking bancrupcy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agree. By appearance, it seems Fergie's flame is directed at Yorke. But just see the fans reaction here, we will understand that indeed his words are double-edge sword which aims at both Disco Yorke and the board simutaneously. It's certainly making PLC look like a joke, whose short-sighted transfer policy give Disco a chance to revenge him being dropped by voiding the team strengthening plan of Fergie.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by uranushk1:
<strong>

Agree. By appearance, it seems Fergie's flame is directed at Yorke. But just see the fans reaction here, we will understand that indeed his words are double-edge sword which aims at both Disco Yorke and the board simutaneously. It's certainly making PLC look like a joke, whose short-sighted transfer policy give Disco a chance to revenge him being dropped by voiding the team strengthening plan of Fergie.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sooner he goes to Blackburn the better.

 

[nickm]

C'mon, you can't blame the Plc for this one - they gave Fergie everything he asked for this season.

The problem with Di Canio/Yorke was wages, not the transfer fee. United, wisely, is run to a budget and it was not unreasonable to expect Fergie to stick to his wage ceiling for the year. The rule was one in, one out and what's wrong with that? We already have enough underperformers sitting around being paid for achieving nothing.

The problem is Yorke, not the Plc. He's more interested sitting on his arse, collecting cash and destroying his reputation, than anything else.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>C'mon, you can't blame the Plc for this one - they gave Fergie everything he asked for this season.

The problem with Di Canio/Yorke was wages, not the transfer fee. United, wisely, is run to a budget and it was not unreasonable to expect Fergie to stick to his wage ceiling for the year. The rule was one in, one out and what's wrong with that? We already have enough underperformers sitting around being paid for achieving nothing.

The problem is Yorke, not the Plc. He's more interested sitting on his arse, collecting cash and destroying his reputation, than anything else.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We wouldn't have had to pay his wages for much longer though would we? Getting Di Canio in may have made Yorke want to leave sooner, possibly during the last transfer window. As it is he'll leave this summer to Blackburn Rovers, or effectively have his career ended. The amount we've saved on wages is less than what we might have got in prize money, so it was a false economy.

 

[Snoeker]

what happened to the deal to be done with Boro? Boro wanted him, United agreed and then SAF played disco in the FA cup vs Boro (was he playing in the previous rounds? I'm not sure, but I somehow think not) rendering him cup tied and thus letting Boro's interest cool.

just a thought.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by Snoeker:
<strong>what happened to the deal to be done with Boro? Boro wanted him, United agreed and then SAF played disco in the FA cup vs Boro (was he playing in the previous rounds? I'm not sure, but I somehow think not) rendering him cup tied and thus letting Boro's interest cool.

just a thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt boro wanted him for just a likely one or two cup games, but for a few years of league games. We agreed a fee, but Disco didn't agree to terms (rumoured to want to double his wages from £30k to £60k a week).

 

[Red Pat]

Disco was invited to becks posh do. What does that say? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[Pavlo]

Disco was only invited to Posh & Becks do because he has been driving Becks to the training ground - maybe he has found his vocation in life - a taxi driver!

 

[King]

Originally posted by Red Pat:
<strong>Disco was invited to becks posh do. What does that say? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Both Becks and Posh got poled at the same time???

<img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" /> <img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" />

 

[nickm]

"Getting Di Canio in may have made Yorke want to leave sooner"

The operative word being 'may'

"possibly during the last transfer window."

The operative word being 'possibly'

"The amount we've saved on wages is less than what we might have got in prize money, so it was a false economy."

It's easy to see that with hindsight but there was no guarantee Di Canio was going to settle in and do a Cantona right away. It took Teddy - a great player - a whole season to show his class consistently, why do you think Di Canio would have been any different? His track record at big clubs isn't that great, it's only when he's a big fish in a small pond that he seems happy.

I'm simply arguing the blame lies with Yorke, and not (for once) with the Plc. who have for the first time given Fergie everything he asked for.

Whatever you think about the Plc. it has, to be fair, managed to (a) find Fergie the resources to give us 11 years of domination (b) set transfer records when required and (c) done so while ensuring we are the least exposed club in Europe to any of the financial earthquakes which are either currently breaking or likely to break.

The price of the financial good sense has been Di Canio - which is a shame, but you can't have everything.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>"Getting Di Canio in may have made Yorke want to leave sooner"

The operative word being 'may'

"possibly during the last transfer window."

The operative word being 'possibly'

"The amount we've saved on wages is less than what we might have got in prize money, so it was a false economy."

It's easy to see that with hindsight but there was no guarantee Di Canio was going to settle in and do a Cantona right away. It took Teddy - a great player - a whole season to show his class consistently, why do you think Di Canio would have been any different? His track record at big clubs isn't that great, it's only when he's a big fish in a small pond that he seems happy.

I'm simply arguing the blame lies with Yorke, and not (for once) with the Plc. who have for the first time given Fergie everything he asked for.

Whatever you think about the Plc. it has, to be fair, managed to (a) find Fergie the resources to give us 11 years of domination (b) set transfer records when required and (c) done so while ensuring we are the least exposed club in Europe to any of the financial earthquakes which are either currently breaking or likely to break.

The price of the financial good sense has been Di Canio - which is a shame, but you can't have everything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if Yorke didn't leave despite Di Canio coming, and left as he will now in the summer, its still small change and worth it, especially in such an under-performing season. He MAY not have made the difference, but its quite possible that he would (the reason why Alex was interested in him). The Plc didn't give him everything he wanted, because he wanted PDC and they wouldn't let him have him. The Plc has been good for us in some ways, but they're not beyond criticism.

 

[Julian Denny]

Originally posted by Lover of Football:
<strong>Im not a fan of the Plc however they do have a legal obligation to the shareholders to act in a responsible manner.Every club has to balance the books you cannot keep signing players and pay a player 30 grand a week for doing nothing.Im sure if Yorke had gone DiCaneo would have signed.Dont blame the Plc for this one.Oh and I believe Yorke will sit out his contract and move on a Bosman.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are of course quite right regarding the Plc's obligations. However, I still think it was relatively "small change" and that Yorke would leave sooner or later. To quibble over paying both player's wages for what would be a temporary period made little sense.

The Plc's attitude, as with previous instances regarding the release of transfer money, tends to be short sighted with the emphasis on "balancing the books" in the short term. However they also have an obligation to shareholders (and fans of course) to keep United at the top both now and in the future, a position which from an achievement point of view the Club doesn't occupy at the moment In order to ensure that this situation is temporary, they will have to give full financial backing to the manager so that he can bring the team up to the winning level again.

The future of the Club as a business depends first and foremost on the team continuing to be successful and in United's case the expectations are high. If the team does not deliver because the Manager can't buy the players he wants, then the business will ultimately suffer and if that happens the shareholders will also feel the pinch.