SharkyMcShark
Horrified
Jesus Christ, 27.
I feel old.
I feel old.
The title's misleading.
Basicaly what he was saying is that the owner is willing to invest and that any club could use a player like Rooney (duh).
He was never specifically talking about him, unless I misinterpreted the whole thing.
As for Soriano's current club, the men in power in Abu Dhabi have spent not far off £1bn, yet still find the team coming up short in Europe. Carlos Tevez cost £47m, not the £32m that was mooted at the time. So goodness knows how much they would have paid Manchester United for Wayne Rooney when he was agitating for a move two years ago. Rooney stayed and City's information now is that his salary was bumped up to – no kidding – £300,000 a week, rather than the £180,000 that was reported at the time.
Any idea how credible this figure is? Shocking if true.
feck me. What a load of shite.
Given how much we are in love with Wayne Rooney, I wouldn't put it past Fergie. No other player had such freedoms under him. Quality players like Becks and Ruud were given the boot for pretty much harmless things, whilst Rooney was rewarded with a huge payrise.
Given how much we are in love with Wayne Rooney, I wouldn't put it past Fergie. No other player had such freedoms under him. Quality players like Becks and Ruud were given the boot for pretty much harmless things, whilst Rooney was rewarded with a huge payrise.
Given how much we are in love with Wayne Rooney, I wouldn't put it past Fergie. No other player had such freedoms under him. Quality players like Becks and Ruud were given the boot for pretty much harmless things, whilst Rooney was rewarded with a huge payrise.
You haven't got a clue have you.
Should've just tried giving ronnie 300k a week in 2009. Would've completely blown everything/everyone else out of the water but hindsight says it would've been worth it.
Rooney only got freedom because ronnie had left.
If ronnie stayed, Fergie would have no issue fecking off wayne.
Should've just tried giving ronnie 300k a week in 2009. Would've completely blown everything/everyone else out of the water but hindsight says it would've been worth it.
Right decision to bring Rooney off today due to him being on a yellow and the Bridge trying to get him sent off, however, I do feel that if he had remained on the pitch we would have bagged at least another goal againt the 9 men such is his creativity.
I think Fergie subbed him off because he was poor, nothing else really.
I've been saying this for years.
Its easy to "follow your dream" when they triple your wages.
Yet the club were praised for arguing Ronaldo should have honor his existing contract... not giving in to "player power"
All very short sighted
@WayneRooney
Wayne Rooney
Watched all the presidential debates. If I had to vote would vote Obama.
Are you serious? So the yellow and then a tackle that was basicaly his final warning weren't the reasons?
okay, maybe one of the reasons eventough that was bad decision because his last foul was never a foul, it was poor decision by the ref, but my point is still the same, he was poor.
Poor display from Rooney. Started well then really careless first to lose possession, then to concede a freekick in such a dangerous position with a reckless challenge.
I think Fergie subbed him off because he was poor, nothing else really.
How is your point still the same? Your point was that he was brought off because he was poor, "nothing else really", you said.
It's pretty clear why he was brought off, because he'd have been sent off. The crowd were agitating for things to be levelled up, Rooney was on a booking and had been given a warning for another foul. One more and he was gone, the ref would've been pressured into making the decision.
Rooney may well have been poor in the second half, but that wasn't why he was brought off, so your point was bollocks, frankly.
Okay, being on yellow card is one of the reasons, I made a mistake when I said that, but I still don't think it was main reason he was brought off.
Good man , now sort that red mist out.