Yup, Everton have an extra £250,000 a week lying around just in case Rooney wants a return.
Ross Barkley
- Thread starter Inigo Montoya
- 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.
- Status
Yup, Everton have an extra £250,000 a week lying around just in case Rooney wants a return.
You've spent more than us, but that's obviously because we haven't needed to spend particularly big (comparatively) with Fergie at the helm. You are/were playing catch up which means you have to stretch yourself to narrow the gap.
If United had to stretch themselves to narrow the gap we could spend like Roman in 2003-2005 or Mansour in 2008-2010. Having the right manager is paramount to success (particularly long term), but we are rich enough to back several managers over the next decade until we get it right. I would like to think that this wouldn't be necessary as even if Moyes isn't the right man the board should be intelligent enough to get the next one correct (by bringing in a manager that is proven).
Moyes in that sense was/is a gamble that if we get correct, would leave us successful for 15-20 years. If not he'll put us back 3-4 years and cost us a few hundred £m putting it right.
Do England have a potentially world-class defensive midfielder coming through the ranks?
Big Phil!
The problem you have of course, is that you'll be competing with the likes of City & Chelsea for the better/expensive players when they come onto the market. & that's assuming that clubs like Barca & Real don't want to get in on the action. Should it turn out that Moyes is not up to the task, then this will mean that United will have fallen quite some way from the team that was winning titles & challenging for the CL on a regular basis. Irrespective of how much money your new manager might have at his disposal, it will be very difficult to attract the quality type of player you'll need to get back into the mix. Let's face it, you've just lost the best manager in the world, so anything else was always going to be a gamble, & a downgrade. That scenario will still exist regardless of who's managing Manchester United. Let's not forget that Fergie -as far as we know - had the funds available to splash out over the past few years. Other than RVP, & despite being linked with a host of other top players, he's not bought that many world-class individuals. The question you have to ask yourself, is, why? This was Manchester United at the top of the tree, with a manager, well known, well respected, & admired right across the footballing world. Why wouldn't any player not want to join your club ? So what's going to be the big pull to a team that might struggle to get into the CL every season ?
Of course, United are not are not going to fall off the end of the footballing world. But unlike Spain & Germany, you, like the rest of us, are in a highly competitive league whereby 3 points are not a given anymore. So long as Wenger is still at Arsenal, & the owners of City & Chelsea continue to splash crazy amounts of money on players & wages, then you have to say that currently, it's hard to see beyond those 3 sides when it comes to CL qualification for the next few years. Then you have teams like Spurs, Liverpool, & Everton. 3 clubs with new, young managers. One of those could take the Premier League by storm over the next few years. Should that happen, then it's stating the bleeding obvious that it'll make the job of United's manager even harder.
If, & I emphasise the word 'if', Moyes doesn't cut it as manager, then your owners will have a difficult decision to make. Do you employ an established proven guy with a good track record ? Or do you try & re-invent yourselves by bringing in a promising, yet un-proven, younger man ? I've been around long enough to know how things can change very quickly in football. I've seen my club win the league in 1990, & your club finish mid-table the same year. Yet just 3 years later things were very different, & they continued to be 'very different' for the next 2 decades. We've made a lot of managerial changes in that time, & those managers were backed to the hilt in the transfer market. Yet with the exception of the odd season here & there, we've never come that close to even becoming a shadow of what we once where.
Someone once said that football is a funny old game. Problem is, it doesn't always make you laugh.
Scousers balls grow when they have a half a season in front of us. You seem to be forgetting about the owners of our club. The financial future of Manchester United and to a certain extent the Glazer family depends on the club having constant success. The club will not stand back and allow stagnation to happen in the scale it did to LFC post 1990. You also have to remember the game has changed so much since then and the stakes for Manchester United, who are a NYSE floated company, are much bigger now than they were for Liverpool back in the days of The Match on ITV with Elton Welsby. If theGlazers/Woodward are not proactive and fail to ensure that the club are competitive then they will have slit their own throats and lost a lot of money.Yakubu
Middlesbrough P73 S25
Everton P82 S25
Blackburn P30 S17
Portsmouth P65 S29
He only just managed a scoring rate of 0.5 at 1 out of his 4 major clubs in has career, he's quite certainly not 'probably 1 in 2 for the rest of them'
Strange post. You put in a laughter smiley to make it look dismissive & upbeat, yet reading between the lines you seem to highlight the nightmarish consequences of United going through a lean period.
There are no guarantees in life mate. & there certainly ain't any in football.
The point is that we can compete with Chelsea, City, Bayern, Real, PSG and Barcelona in terms of wages and transfer fees. As long as that is the case, then we have an equal chance to City and Chelsea of qualifying for the Champions League, which is a higher chance than anyone else.
If Moyes doesn't cut it I would expect someone of the Ancelotti or Klopp caliber to be brought in (doubtful they'll be at their respective clubs more than a couple of seasons) and given a nine figure some to build a squad.
As I said - worst case scenario Manchester United could always adopt the policy of Manchester City and Chelsea's - hiring/firing and throwing money at manager after manager until it works (not that we will, as even Chelsea seem to be learning it isn't the way to go about it, hence re-employing Mourinho). There is the monumental difference between a Liverpool, Spurs or Arsenal who make £20-35m profit a year, vs a United who make £110m (whilst also maintaining a significantly higher wage bill).
Nathaniel Chalobah is the business.
We need to "over pay" occasionally for out top targets. To be honest though, it's not overpaying - it's market rates. Have to match the best offers and exceed the, from time to time.
Hope we get this kid. We've got to be favorites.
Hope we get this kid. We've got to be favorites.
We've been 'favourites' by way of caf mathematics on too many players over the years, I'm too scared of getting burned again!
No the point is there has to be for this model of a club, that the Glazers wanted, to work.
Not sure thats true. After expecting £28 million for Fellaini I'm sure it'll take a fair bit more to get Barkley
We saw Chelsea splash out £32 million on Willian during the summer just to keep him away from Spurs. Do you really think United can compete with that sort of thing ? The big difference between the Glazers & the owners of City & Chelsea is that your guys are in it for the money. I seriously doubt they'd just throw limitless amounts of cash at the problem. After all, in the 3 and a half years since Chelsea last won the league they've hired & fired numerous managers, had a net spend approaching £300 million, & ended each of the past 3 seasons on 71 - 65 - & 75 points respectively. So changing managers at the drop of a hat, & spending staggering amounts of money isn't always the answer. They might have won the CL under RDM, but I doubt he'd be high on the list of potential candidates for the mangers job at OT anytime soon. So in that respect, unless they sell out to a sugar-daddy, then Manchester United are in the 2nd tier when it comes to signing players.
One of the imponderables you're faced with, is that you can't control, or forecast, just how the teams in the 3rd tier (Spurs, Liverpool, & Everton) are going to shape up with their new managers. I think we've already ascertained that simply spending more money than another team doesn't guarantee you'll do any better than them. & it's interesting that you mention Jurgen Klopp as a potential future manager of United. He's the man responsible for breaking Bayern's stranglehold in Germany. He also did it at a fraction of the cost of what other successful clubs in Europe have spent. So who's to say that Martinez or Rodgers, can't, or won't, become the Premier League's equivalent ? That would be one more team your club would have to contend with.
Your reasoning is a little bit too simplistic for me. The great man who was wholly responsible for United's success over the past 2 decades has now gone. Like pretty much everyone else, your destiny now lies in the hands of the gods of fate. & even those guys were frightened of Fergie.
The comparison with Liverpool doesn't make sense. All they ever did was float between 5th-2nd. There's a difference between a team like that dropping out and the team that's dominated the league for the last 20 years dropping out for a season.
It would make sense in terms of the competition. Couldn't see him going to Liverpool for obvious reasons and both City & Chelsea are well stocked in midfield which would leave the deep pockets of United.
I think Barkley will become the most expensive English transfer in the league's history but hard to say how badly Everton need to sell along with how well he can continue to do under Martinez.
He will only have two years left on his contract next summer so unless he signs they will probably have to sell.
He really would be a typical United signing.
Yeah, I suppose if they also intend to build a new stadium, a big sale would help in that regard...But Barkley is a bonafide star in the making, I'm sure some Toffees were happy to see Rooney leave but Ross?...Not sure the fans would be too happy nevermind Martinez
Aye, they were all chuffed to see the best player to have come out of their youth academy leave.
Yep, there's no better feeling in the world than your club selling a player with world class potential.
They most certainly were not!
Rooney had just tore up the Euros before United got him. His star was shining much brighter at that time than Barkley's is right now.
Everton was a one trick pony then and even Moyes and Rooney weren't getting along, it was a relationship that was never going to end well and I did say some
Barkley, on the other hand, seems more level headed and enjoying the team play, doesn't seem to look for the spotlight - interestingly enough, only a year older than Wayne when he was sold to United
Barkley, on the other hand, seems more level headed and enjoying the team play, doesn't seem to look for the spotlight - interestingly enough, only a year older than Wayne when he was sold to United
I do see where you are coming from - but I don't think Willian has strengthened Chelsea. In fact I'd argue he may actually weaken them in the long run as a better player in Mata will often start on the bench to accommodate him.
I totally agree re: the Glazer's. They will not want to spend any money that they don't have to. However they are intelligent people and if spending £400m on transfers over the next 5 seasons means that we are pretty much secure a top 4 finish and a competitive squad for the best part of a decade then it is a worthwhile investment (just like City have). Think about your owner and his sanctioning of pretty much all of Liverpool's profit in order to get into the Champions League. He doesn't particularly care about success (only profit), but he see's the value in the Champions League income and the exposure it gives the club and is willing to substantially invest in order to attain it. Now if you think that United's profit is around 5x Liverpool's (Liverpool c. £22m vs United £109m) and Liverpool have spent nearly £100m in the last 3 seasons... It isn't hard to imagine the kind of spend that we could sanction, if deemed necessary.
Of course we can't forecast how Everton, Liverpool and Spurs do. However it should be irrelevant, as a club like United can pluck the best player's off these clubs away to strengthen themselves and weaken their rivals. If Barkley has a great season, Moyes has the power to sign him, likewise with any Spurs player (although Liverpool might be more difficult because of the history, but you get the idea). These clubs cannot afford to offer £150k a week in wages, whereas United could offer £250k if they so decided. The example you brought up with Klopp vs Martinez/Rodgers is a good one, which perfectly fits what's happened with a financially stronger team in Bayern Munich buying their best player in Gotze and inevitably their next best player in Lewandowski. These clubs can find a gem of a manager, but without the financial strength of their rivals, can't do too much to keep a great squad together. Suarez will leave Liverpool in the Summer and they'll struggle massively to replace him. Barkley will almost certainly leave Everton in the next season or 2 and they'll struggle. The same as we've seen with Spurs and Bale. Even great managers can't stay competitive whilst selling their best player's, Dortmund for instance are 10 points behind Bayern in the League and requiring a win tonight to qualify for the CL (although injuries have played a big part too).
The simplistic reasoning is that you can pretty much guarantee a top 4 finish if you spend the necessary amount (see Chelsea/City). United have the means to spend this necessary amount.
The comments in bold could have just as easily applied to Rooney before he left.
Going to trim your post to this point Finneh.
Since the end of 08-09:
Code:
In Out Net Avg Spend per Year
Manchester City 530m 135m -395m 105m
Chelsea 400m 80m -320m 80m
Manchester United 200m 135m -65m 40m
Arsenal 180m 210m +30m 35mIn short, we just can't compete with Chelsea and Citys spending. Even with the influx on the Ronaldo transfer money we haven't got close to either. We have however managed our books fairly well, something that neither Chelsea or City have come close to doing.
We haven't even broken the 30m transfer fee yet. Something that Chelsea, Manchester City have done 3 times and Arsenal once. Question is, have we been purposefully not spending money in recent years to be able to back our new manager? Or is it a case of we're simply not a big spending club anymore?
Do I think we'll splash out 30m for Barkley? I really don't. I could see Liverpool going for him if/when Suarez is sold though as he'd be a decent replacement for Gerrard.
Would they sell to us? I'd love to sign him.
There is a difference between choosing not to, and not being able to. I think so far we have chosen not to overspend because our existing squad was at an acceptable level and instead we preferred to continue to pay back the debts. Now, with the squad in a bit of a need for freshening, I'm certain that the Glazers will loosen the pursestrings. We are their biggest asset, and they won't want it's value to go down.
No.
They would if we went in with ridiculous money.
Yeah but you won't, so they won't.
I think we are ready to spend big on the right player, while City, Chelsea, PSG and Madrid can spend big. They are ready to throw away money with no thought to repercussion. What is 30 million to the Sheikhs or Abramovich?? 27 million on Felliani shows that we can spend, for me it is more important to spend wisely.
I can definitely see us spending 30 million plus on Barkley, but I would like to wait a season or two and allow him to develop further at Everton.
I can definitely see us spending 30 million plus on Barkley, but I would like to wait a season or two and allow him to develop further at Everton.
Your figures along with our superior record on the pitch during that period only illustrates that with Fergie at the helm we did not need to compete with them in this way in order to beat them.
If it becomes apparent now that for a few seasons we have to spend like them to beat them, we can.
Quite confident that he will sign a contract with us when the time comes if a club doesn't offer silly money.
There is no chance Everton will sell him in January, unless some silly club offer them Bale-type money.
Would be perfect at United though.
Would be perfect at United though.
Top post.
- Status