Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chelsea must be kicking themselves for over asking for cucurella, they'll just have to pay him all season now for the odd appearance in the early cup rounds.

I doubt they'll care mate.

If they accepted the break clause and United cancelled the loan in January when Shaw was fit, they'd have to pay him for the rest of the season anyway.

Plus Boehley doesn't seem like the sort to lose sleep over a few extra weeks wages anyway!
 
Could care less about some naft LB.....just throw a freezer box out there......have we signed a fecking DM yet?
 
Easily, theyve put in place the people who have hired the managers weve had, who have bought the players weve got, and allowed all of this to happen.
Its easy to blame a manager, but with a proper structure, we would not be wasting money, indulging certain people, and thus causing issues in terms of moving on.
We have no structure in place, and its been allowed for 10 years. We have no succession plan in place if a certain manager doesnt work out. To go from Fergie > Moyes > LVG > Jose > Ole > ETH.
There is no planning at all in terms of that.

The buck stops with Glazers and I agree with you. Theyve allowed the club to become like this because they dont ultimately care if we challenge or not. Getting CL football is more important as is getting in sponsors and such.
Yep, for the Glazers it’s all about cash and nothing else. They symbolise the dark age that the world finds itself in.
 
Ok what happens if one of Dalot or Fernandez gets injured? Then what? We’d have 0 LBs at the club and 1 RB.

Then I would call it bad luck just like everyone goes through. Our squad already has the highest number of players from top 5 (32, since yesterday 31). Do you want 40 players in a squad?

It is more than enough to have 3 players on that position and if really all three are injured which is seldom, then you either play someone out of position (Dalot…) or you let a young player jump in (Fernandez). Take a look at other clubs, City, Arsenal, Pool or Spurs - in these circumstances they play someone out of position or get a young prospect to replace the injured.

I just don’t see a point getting someone who haven’t really played in two years continuously on a good level instead of using our own players. But again I am glad it is us just paying Reguilon’s salary, no laon fee, no obligations to buy him and we can send him back in January when our injury situation hopefully improves.
 
The club earns enough money, but the greedy owners will be trying to penny pinch since they decided to stick around. They'll want to maximise their profits.
It's not about that. It literally is about Covid losses, having been fined by UEFA a couple months ago and overspending. Sure, the Glazers putting in money would help but it's really about past spending catching up to us as well as an inability to get rid of the players that that spending meant for their wages.

Hopefully should be sorted within another season or two.
 
Chelsea must be kicking themselves for over asking for cucurella, they'll just have to pay him all season now for the odd appearance in the early cup rounds.
I’m convinced they played him on purpose to try and get more cash from us
 
McTominay is done here it's time to rebuild those squad options with kids like Gore, Mainoo and Megbri. Five years in the first team and he has had a few spells of acceptable form, we need players who have more potential for growth. I'd rather we struggle with a couple of 18 year olds with world class potential than go around in circles with players like Scott.
It would be ridiculous to rely on those 3 as our squad players. 1? Fine but 3 of them? No. We're not risking a Southampton 22/23 season.
 
If in the event of ending up with 3 injured full backs at the same time you bemoan your bad luck and get on with it. Two full backs each side is more than enough.

If a whole bunch gets injured then players have to play out of position or a youth team player steps up.
Reguillon coming in would mean there are 4 fullbacks fit at the club.
 
surely every club has been offered the possibility to sign Mason Greenwood ? :) Do we pick one and say - "dear Lazio, we do not want Mason, but we feel you have the required morals (or lack of) to accomodate him in the future ?"
 

No mention of Amrabat - doubling down on his “United were never interested” stance.
 

No mention of Amrabat - doubling down on his “United were never interested” stance.

Even if he doesn't join, it is fairly obvious that the club were interested and made attempts to sign him. So him not joining would do absolutely nothing for his credibility.
 


Completely forgot about Greenwood. Are we not a bit stuck if we don’t find a club for him today?

After the statement we put out about him not doing the things he was accused of and supporting him with his next move I’m not sure we will just cancel his contract.
 
The problem is, most of the posters who have shat on Mount were pre-planning it before he kicked a ball. They were whinging and moaning and questioning the transfer and couldn't wait to jump on him.

I prefer to take a more rational approach --> 1) was he a priority for our manager 2) do I back our manager and 3) does the manager have pedigree in getting the best out of talent, even when he's questioned. The answers are yes, yes and Tadic/Haller etc. say yes too.

To that end, I have absolutely no problem with him spending on Mount, heck I saw good logic in it. For that advanced midfielder role Mount suits it on paper very well.
If we didn't, Liverpool or Arsenal would have snapped him for a similar fee. Either Klopp, Ten Hag, Arteta are all idiots, or the true "idiotic" thought comes from the so called supporters who wanted to shit on the transfer before a ball was kicked.

But look at the glaring gaps in the squad. Mount feels like a luxury buy. We didn't need him. £60M that could've gone towards those gaps has gone on him.

I think he's a good player, I think he could be a good player for us in a future squad but it stands out like a sore thumb in amongst all of our poor planning and current scrambling to get anyone in on loan for dirt cheap. We had the money to get these players in, we spunked it on Mount. If he'd gone to Liverpool or Arsenal, hardly any of us would've been arsed.
 
surely every club has been offered the possibility to sign Mason Greenwood ? :) Do we pick one and say - "dear Lazio, we do not want Mason, but we feel you have the required morals (or lack of) to accomodate him in the future ?"

Pretty sure we (as in the club) do want Mason though, so would probs be more along the lines of "hey Lazio you legends, you're just like us and we have a player that we both love do you want him?".
 
Completely forgot about Greenwood. Are we not a bit stuck if we don’t find a club for him today?

After the statement we put out about him not doing the things he was accused of and supporting him with his next move I’m not sure we will just cancel his contract.

There's a very good chance we already have. I'm not sure why people are assuming he's still a united player.
 
But look at the glaring gaps in the squad. Mount feels like a luxury buy. We didn't need him. £60M that could've gone towards those gaps has gone on him.

I think he's a good player, I think he could be a good player for us in a future squad but it stands out like a sore thumb in amongst all of our poor planning and current scrambling to get anyone in on loan for dirt cheap. We had the money to get these players in, we spunked it on Mount. If he'd gone to Liverpool or Arsenal, hardly any of us would've been arsed.
Mount is not a luxury buy, he's there to fill a hole we had in the first XI.
I get he's not your choice but he was the manager's and after learning the system he's looking to implement I actually think Mount fits well there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.