We are not going to score enough goals

lsd said:
The club have basically said the final decision rests now with those players which is a disgusting thing to do as they will now get criticised no matter what happens.

It's shameful how badly this club is run at times
Click to expand...
Wasn't the message, that they want to involve all stakeholders on the matter? I mean, that is a fair statement. Be it pretty late but nonetheless. I agree, that such lowlife who use semi-intimidating oneliners is a big issue, but lets not act as if it would be in the control of the club to get rid of them. Those people will find different reasons to abuse people, maybe different ones but the problem would remain the same.

I wouldn't join in at critizising the club as incompetent and stuff, this was always going to be very very touchy matter and of course, no one semi reasonable would want to be the person sticking out for making a decision.
 
lsd said:
The club have basically said the final decision rests now with those players which is a disgusting thing to do as they will now get criticised no matter what happens.

It's shameful how badly this club is run at times
Click to expand...

"Basically said" - That's mostly your interpretation, no? It's one part of a bigger part of investigations, in which we don't really have any transparency or the full perspective yet.

Also, why see it as a bad thing pr see? It means these women may actually have some power and a say in this. Personally I don't see this as a bad thing. There's also the 3rd option that they just don't want to be part of the decision and can just say no to being part of a decision. Sticking your head out for something no matter what their stand is, might always get criticized as there's so many with an opinion on it (there'll always be twitter idiots too), but it's also the only way for causes like these to move forward and either find no forgiveness or forgiveness (given if he's actually remorseful and long term committed to helping out women causes like this).

Btw: I don't see myself as pro-Greenwood it really depends on how he acts. But I do hope there's full acceptance and a big degree of public remorse from him should he continue here. I think he's suffered a big deal already, and I don't believe in not forgiving, but he has to be somehow remorse/talk about it in public (so should his girlfriend, as she's the most important one in this case).

He should do some long term commitment to some good causes for women to continue here imo. I highly doubt the club would want to do a PR suicide by just letting him in the team one day without any big words on the case neither.
 
I think Hojlund being a physical presence in the penalty box and occupying opposing centrebacks is definitely going to help. He's going to poach some goals also - Haaland style. Better ball retention and higher percentage of possession as an effect of having Onana as a keeper with his amazing distribution will also be splendid. Also, we'll be able to push/press higher up the pitch because of Onana's sweeping capabilities.

If we scored 58 goals last season in the PL, this season is going to be somewhere between 70-80, i feel. Similar to Liverpool last year, but still less than City and Arsenal. Hojlund is too raw and inexperienced and our right wing is not dangerous enough(Antony).
 
Plant0x84 said:
Joel Glazer is widely reported to have final sign off on all club decisions. It literally IS his call, even if it’s hidden behind a club statement or Arnie/Murtough taking the flack.
Click to expand...

This is the interesting factor that has seemed to have changed since this matter was reported around March and April. The Athletic/Laurie Whitwell reported that the final decision will be Joel Glazer's. Yesterday, the Athletic and Samuel Luckhurst from MEN are now saying the final decision will be Richard Arnold's.

Does that signify anything at all (apart from the fact that we know that Joel Glazer can't make decisions) ?

Is there a possibility that this conclusion will now wait until the men's international break?

In yesterday's article The Athletic have now reintroduced the notion ( like they did back in March/April) that he may have to an interview and be part of a phased return.
 
Yorke to Cole said:
This is the interesting factor that has seemed to have changed since this matter was reported around March and April. The Athletic/Laurie Whitwell reported that the final decision will be Joel Glazer's. Yesterday, the Athletic and Samuel Luckhurst from MEN are now saying the final decision will be Richard Arnold's.

Does that signify anything at all (apart from the fact that we know that Joel Glazer can't make decisions) ?

Is there a possibility that this conclusion will now wait until the men's international break?

In yesterday's article The Athletic have now reintroduced the notion ( like they did back in March/April) that he may have to an interview and be part of a phased return.
Click to expand...

The Glazers employ Arnold and own the club - any hint that it’s ‘his deceision’ is just last minute spin to deflect any bad PR - something the Glazers most definitely care about and have a long history of.

He’s a £100m asset ffs, they’re not just gonna say, ‘whatevz bro, you guys decide’ - they’re insanely greedy wankers and also cowards who try to deflect any bad PR wherever possible.

Further still, if it was just up to the football people, he’d be back already without a doubt.
 
NZT-One said:
Wasn't the message, that they want to involve all stakeholders on the matter? I mean, that is a fair statement. Be it pretty late but nonetheless. I agree, that such lowlife who use semi-intimidating oneliners is a big issue, but lets not act as if it would be in the control of the club to get rid of them. Those people will find different reasons to abuse people, maybe different ones but the problem would remain the same.

I wouldn't join in at critizising the club as incompetent and stuff, this was always going to be very very touchy matter and of course, no one semi reasonable would want to be the person sticking out for making a decision.
Click to expand...

This is literally what the upper management is there for, to manage things and make decisions when situations arise. This is what Arnold and Murtough are paid for. We've often heard that Joel Glazer signs off on every decision, and while I do believe the Glazers are incompetent, they aren't dumb enough to not realize what a potential shitshow the stoneworker situation can end up being. If he usually wants to sign off on everything then he should want to be the one to make the call here as well, and if not, then Arnold is the next person down in the chain of command and he has to make a decision. Someone needs to do it. That is their job.
 
Cloud7 said:
This is literally what the upper management is there for, to manage things and make decisions when situations arise. This is what Arnold and Murtough are paid for. We've often heard that Joel Glazer signs off on every decision, and while I do believe the Glazers are incompetent, they aren't dumb enough to not realize what a potential shitshow the stoneworker situation can end up being. If he usually wants to sign off on everything then he should want to be the one to make the call here as well, and if not, then Arnold is the next person down in the chain of command and he has to make a decision. Someone needs to do it. That is their job.
Click to expand...
I am with you on this. But your take may has already shown the issue. It is an upper management issue - but who exactly? Thats the thing, such situations are probably rarely prepared and thats why it seems to be in limbo, who is supposed to stick their head out. I agree, some of them should have done it but I am pretty sure, everybody within the club wants said player as a player at the club, they just don't want to appear as if they made the decision too easily. That said, I am sure, all of them would be fine with just ending the chapter, but here again, who would be the one to make the decision to potentially get rid of a valuable asset just for the sake of an unquantifiable public reaction.

Its a toughy ^^ (pretty sure, it would be for most clubs, not a United specific issue)
 
You’d hope that Garnacho can chip in with a few more, but Hojlund being out for the start of the season is frustrating. We need one of those two to have an impressive season.
 
Siorac said:
Cup competitions are an entirely different kettle of fish.

As for Mourinho's Chelsea: they won the league with a goal difference of +57, a record at the time. 17 of their 29 wins was by more than one goal, 8 of them by three or more. And that is actually important: a team that has to fight to the bitter end in every single game because each of them is always balanced on a knife's edge is a team that's highly unlikely to win the title, simply because all too often one mistake, or one lucky deflection can lead to dropping points. Those games that you win by 3, 4, 5 goals build confidence and momentum and allow a certain sort of "rest".
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
ROFLUTION said:
"Basically said" - That's mostly your interpretation, no? It's one part of a bigger part of investigations, in which we don't really have any transparency or the full perspective yet.

Also, why see it as a bad thing pr see? It means these women may actually have some power and a say in this. Personally I don't see this as a bad thing. There's also the 3rd option that they just don't want to be part of the decision and can just say no to being part of a decision. Sticking your head out for something no matter what their stand is, might always get criticized as there's so many with an opinion on it (there'll always be twitter idiots too), but it's also the only way for causes like these to move forward and either find no forgiveness or forgiveness (given if he's actually remorseful and long term committed to helping out women causes like this).

Btw: I don't see myself as pro-Greenwood it really depends on how he acts. But I do hope there's full acceptance and a big degree of public remorse from him should he continue here. I think he's suffered a big deal already, and I don't believe in not forgiving, but he has to be somehow remorse/talk about it in public (so should his girlfriend, as she's the most important one in this case).

He should do some long term commitment to some good causes for women to continue here imo. I highly doubt the club would want to do a PR suicide by just letting him in the team one day without any big words on the case neither.
Click to expand...

The little cnut can feck off to anywhere but here.
 
Will we even beat last season's tally? Rashy's purple patch carried us to 58 goals.
 
Feels like we're going to be heavily relying on Hojlund becoming a consistent goalscorer this season
 
You know it's bad when you're hoping to escape with a draw. At home. Against wolves.

Fml
 
I feel sorry for the 20 year old we signed for big money. So much responsibility on him!
 
Wasted 60 million on mount when we would have been better off putting that towards top centre forward in their prime, with all the crazy fees this summer, osimhen for 130 million is not so absurd
 
need a striker on loan whatever age that has a good scoring ability (and not a WW disaster)
 
It's clear the problem is creatively and why breaking the bank for Kane would have been pointless.

Creating enough good chances is going to a problem that Ten Hag will have to solve.

Perhaps Amad will provide the answer when he is fit
 
No chance we finish top 4 unless Holjund turns up with 20+ goals. Feels too much to ask

That or Rashford goes back to his amazing run of form from last season, but again that seems unlikely
 
Didn't see a single thing today that would convince me that we were going to score more goals than last season.
 
We absolutely needed Kane and we passed on him. Now what? Unless Hojlund surprises us all it's going to be a long year ahead in front of goal.
 
Our best and most dangerous attacker will spend large periods of time playing out of position and the others are all erratic or unproven. Goals will be a huge problem.
 
I don't question is Hojlund a good buy but it was a wrong moment to do it. We needed proven striker for NOW. This moment and this season. Especially when our schedule are Spurs and Arsenal in first 4 games. If that means not buying midfielder too then fine. Osimhen is 140 mil. I would be happier and much more confident with Osimhen than with Mount/Hojlund combo.
 
Kopral Jono said:
We absolutely needed Kane and we passed on him. Now what? Unless Hojlund surprises us all it's going to be a long year ahead in front of goal.
Click to expand...
Kane wouldn't have changed anything tonight. The whole attack is completely disjointed.
 
As much as a concern it is that we may not score enough goals, it's an even bigger concern that teams are still easily being to run at our defence with little challenge in midfield, it all feels rinse and repeat from last season
 
You must log in or register to reply here.