When we’re back on top

I do feel more hopeful since INEOS took over so I'll give them more time to adjust the club to their vision.
 
glazed said:
It's the same point. A top four finish was the bare minimum for big club credibility and TV revenue. That's why it was in all the Glazer managers' contracts. But the club under the Glazers was primarily a brand with a football team attached. That's why Klopp turned us down but took the Liverpool job. He knew that we were a bunch of clowns with all that Disneyland rubbish coming out of Woodward's mouth. ETH's willingness to take the job says a lot in his favour and I want to give him every chance to succeed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the idea we were paying Ronaldo half a million a week because we wanted to get top four on the cheap makes not a jot of sense.
 
We will challenge again. Like Liverpool and Arsenal were always going to again when they were pissing around in mid table.

United are so big, it’s inconceivable that we won’t.

However long it lasts will depend on the circumstances at the time. If city’s owners stop pumping money in, it could be long term
 
quadrant said:
I'm sorry, but the idea we were paying Ronaldo half a million a week because we wanted to get top four on the cheap makes not a jot of sense.
Click to expand...
It does. It was about marketing and giving fans a sugar rush. Economists call it inelastic demand - when the quality of the product does not reduce demand for it. And yes we paid a big salary but no transfer fee. It accounted differently.

But also yes Ronaldo was the moment that broke the system. Ronaldo was when Glazernomics collapsed.
 
When we get back to the pinnacle of English and European football I’m going to be such a cnut to anyone and everyone and I will end up getting divorced as I repeatedly scream “hahahaha you glory hunting cocky little cnut” to my stepson from morning to night for 3 months straight.
 
Von Mistelroum said:
I'm hoping for another 30 years...



I know. I have to be negative though so that anything positive is a nice surprise!

Well, we're 11th at the moment, clinging to an incompetent manager and with no attacking threat because our transfer plan involves throwing money at players we don't need, while holding onto those who are no longer able to play at the highest level.

I would say that while we're clinging to EtH, we're heading backwards and I think we'll see that at the end of the season if he stays.
Click to expand...

The manager is one thing but the dearth of available options, the fact that the management team only had their feet in the door along with the work required on squad building it's understandable they kept him for another year.

You're talking as if the Summer didn't happen. That criticism would have been valid prior to that but the new management team have had one window of a three year plan and that window has been the best in a long time. We've cleared out a lot of players who needed to go and, while it's early days, brought in what appear to be upgrades in a lot of areas. We've also picked up a couple of very talented youngsters.

I'd expect there to be more of the same next year with the squad continuing to improve, likely under a new manager.

I'm not sure we could have moved on many more players in one window and can I ask who you think we've we thrown money at that we didn't need this Summer?
 
I like what Ineos are doing , trying their best to clear up 15 years of a mess. We will challenge again , a big part of it will be on who replaces ETH
 
glazed said:
It does. It was about marketing and giving fans a sugar rush. Economists call it inelastic demand - when the quality of the product does not reduce demand for it. And yes we paid a big salary but no transfer fee. It accounted differently.

But also yes Ronaldo was the moment that broke the system. Ronaldo was when Glazernomics collapsed.
Click to expand...

But he was no outlier. If memory serves we paid the third highest total in transfer fees and second highest total in wages in the world over a ten year period. This is not doing things on the cheap, by any possible definition.
 
quadrant said:
But he was no outlier. If memory serves we paid the third highest total in transfer fees and second highest total in wages in the world over a ten year period. This is not doing things on the cheap, by any possible definition.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the amount spent, it was the pattern. Lots of big names over the hill on short term contracts. Lots of very young players who ought to have had a resale value but didn't because they got deskilled. Players bought for their spreadsheet value not to fit any pattern of play. A head coach who was a likable yes man who went along with anything. It was accountants playing fantasy football. Rangnick came in and just called out the shitshow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.