Which Forward will we sign or loan today? (Deadline Day)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sad seeing so much activity in the Premier League, even Wolves buying players to try save their season and we buy one youngster and two academy level players (one who won't join till summer).

Feel sorry for Amorim, they have left him high and dry.

GLAZEOS had the cheek to announce Heaven as a starter and parade him along with Dorgu after paying about £1m. And also give news about a possible deal for Quenda. SPINEOS!

Thought Glazers were bad but Jim along with them takes it to another level.

What a crap show.
 
gulli_G said:
Thought Glazers were bad but Jim along with them takes it to another level.
Click to expand...
The Glazers are the reason INEOS has no money to spend. 10 years of wasted money has led to this.

Not to mention it was all of the clubs own money. The Glazers have not spent a penny of their own money, on top of taking out £150m in dividends in the last 10 years.

Also not even a penny has been invested into the aging training facilities and a stadium that is falling apart. Which is ridiculous, the Glazers have spent nothing of their own.

Jim wants to spend, but he can't because of the Glazers.
 
I have a question about loans with and option to buy. For example with Tel, if Spurs go ahead with the purchase, is Tel obliged to sign permanently or can he decline?
 
nmm85 said:
I have a question about loans with and option to buy. For example with Tel, if Spurs go ahead with the purchase, is Tel obliged to sign permanently or can he decline?
Click to expand...
He'd have already aqgreed to the terms same as the clubs - he and Tottenham will have agreed personal terms on a permanent deal should Tottenham take up the option.

So, no, the player or selling club can't just change their minds - that's the whole point for giving the buying club the 'option'. If either of the other two parties could just change their minds at any point then the whole agreement would be completely meaningless for the buying club, as he could still end up anywhere else.

The only party of the three that gets to decide at the end of the loan is the buying club - which is why it's a good deal to get an 'option', not an 'obligation' or neither. As it completely puts the deal in your control.
 
Longlivekeano said:
I think our options will be in the summer. Can’t really think of many strikers available. Maybe Dusic (Juve), Welbeck (Brighton), E Ferguson (Brighton). We’ll just have to work with Hojlund and Zirkzee for the next few months.
Click to expand...
If all your hopes are stuck on an amazing summer transfer window you're getting sucked into the spin. We may have a chance of the Europa League but with now a weaker squad than when we started the season with. Not supporting a new manager in the January window is a disgrace. But what else would we expect at the moment from the cost cutting Glazer puppets, Ineos. I'm guessing if all of you knew what would happen when 'Man Utd fan' Sir Jim Ratcliffe came on the scene, you'd take the Qataris every day of the week. Those that backed Ratcliffe backed continuation of Glazers and the debt on the club that the Glazers put there.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
He'd have already aqgreed to the terms same as the clubs - he and Tottenham will have agreed personal terms on a permanent deal should Tottenham take up the option.

So, no, the player or selling club can't just change their minds - that's the whole point for giving the buying club the 'option'. If either of the other two parties could just change their minds at any point then the whole agreement would be completely meaningless for the buying club, as he could still end up anywhere else.

The only party of the three that gets to decide at the end of the loan is the buying club - which is why it's a good deal to get an 'option', not an 'obligation' or neither. As it completely puts the deal in your control.
Click to expand...

Thanks, yes I knew about the clubs but wasn't sure if the contract was for loan and the clubs agreed a price. As Tel is still getting paid and has a contract with Bayern.
 
nmm85 said:
Thanks, yes I knew about the clubs but wasn't sure if the contract was for loan and the clubs agreed a price. As Tel is still getting paid and has a contract with Bayern.
Click to expand...
Tel would have agreed personal terms on a future deal with Tottenham as well. The only thing that could happen was, if Tel really didn't want to join by the end of the loan, and was eager to go somewhere else - and that club were prepared to offer more than the agreed 'option' figure - then Tottenham could trigger the deal and then negotiate with the other club and make a bit of a profit while Tel got the move he wanted.

But it would be very much Tottenham controlling the situation and up to them whether to hold Tel to the deal he agreed upon (much would depend on whether they think they'd get stuck with a player who really didn't want to be there).

So it's all in the buying clubs hands at the end of the season, but they'll obviously take the clear wishes and likely commitment level of the player into consideration when making the decision.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
The Glazers are the reason INEOS has no money to spend. 10 years of wasted money has led to this.

Not to mention it was all of the clubs own money. The Glazers have not spent a penny of their own money, on top of taking out £150m in dividends in the last 10 years.

Also not even a penny has been invested into the aging training facilities and a stadium that is falling apart. Which is ridiculous, the Glazers have spent nothing of their own.

Jim wants to spend, but he can't because of the Glazers.
Click to expand...
Jim knew what he was getting into. It's no secret we've been run into the ground by the glazers.

What Jim did do though is keep the glazers at the club for the foreseeable future. He didn't pony up what was needed to buy the glazers out and he didn't step aside to allow someone else to.

So I'm not giving Jim any sympathy, he is the reason the glazers are still here.
 
I guess this thread title should be changed to which forward we are going to sign in the summer?

The Whitwell article in the Athletic confirmed our top priority is to sign a centre-forward in the summer, and the relative prudence in the January window is in preparation for that.
 
Honestly we’ve spent so terribly over the years we deserve this. As glib as that is when you buy Antony, Casemiro, Sancho, Maguire, etc for stupid money then you can’t moan about not spending anymore.

We’re obviously pretty skint, it all goes on the company credit card now, it’s a terrible situation and unfortunately that’s how it is.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Tel would have agreed personal terms on a future deal with Tottenham as well. The only thing that could happen was, if Tel really didn't want to join by the end of the loan, and was eager to go somewhere else - and that club were prepared to offer more than the agreed 'option' figure - then Tottenham could trigger the deal and then negotiate with the other club and make a bit of a profit while Tel got the move he wanted.

But it would be very much Tottenham controlling the situation and up to them whether to hold Tel to the deal he agreed upon (much would depend on whether they think they'd get stuck with a player who really didn't want to be there).

So it's all in the buying clubs hands at the end of the season, but they'll obviously take the clear wishes and likely commitment level of the player into consideration when making the decision.
Click to expand...

Thanks that makes perfect sense. I guess if he really didn't want to stay he would just tell Levi not to trigger the option and you would hope he would listen.

Foolsgold21 said:
I guess this thread title should be changed to which forward we are going to sign in the summer?

The Whitwell article in the Athletic confirmed our top priority is to sign a centre-forward in the summer, and the relative prudence in the January window is in preparation for that.
Click to expand...

Using up my last post of the day so will reply here but I think United have had to be sensible in this window, albeit frustrating for us fans. If we can come in to the summer window having got rid of all of our deadwood then we should be in a pretty strong. I'd imagine we'll go for RWB and ST and then if we can find any more change in the back of the sofa we can then go for replacements for Eriksen and hopefully a new GK.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Tel would have agreed personal terms on a future deal with Tottenham as well. The only thing that could happen was, if Tel really didn't want to join by the end of the loan, and was eager to go somewhere else - and that club were prepared to offer more than the agreed 'option' figure - then Tottenham could trigger the deal and then negotiate with the other club and make a bit of a profit while Tel got the move he wanted.

But it would be very much Tottenham controlling the situation and up to them whether to hold Tel to the deal he agreed upon (much would depend on whether they think they'd get stuck with a player who really didn't want to be there).

So it's all in the buying clubs hands at the end of the season, but they'll obviously take the clear wishes and likely commitment level of the player into consideration when making the decision.
Click to expand...
There are sources claiming that Tel will also have to agree if Spurs exercise their option. In my opinion this makes sense as Tel is someone who wants to make it at Bayern.
 
the season is a write off anyway, seems like we have our forward targets already set for the summer (probably Gyokeres). I’d love Isak but doubt he’s attainable.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Honestly we’ve spent so terribly over the years we deserve this. As glib as that is when you buy Antony, Casemiro, Sancho, Maguire, etc for stupid money then you can’t moan about not spending anymore.

We’re obviously pretty skint, it all goes on the company credit card now, it’s a terrible situation and unfortunately that’s how it is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, unfortunately true.
 
If we had sold garnacho would we have not replaced him this window??? Or would we have kept rashford/Anthony?
Or was cunha waiting in the wings if garny was sold? That would have made a bit of sense as he signed the new contract at around that time
 
tenpoless said:
Signing another unproven striker won't do anything.... what's good about Tel?
Click to expand...
While I would've liked to add someone, I'm not miffed we missed out necessarily after seeing Bayern fans describe him as more of an attacking mid or second striker, a sort of player we have a plethora of and wouldn't solve the fact that we don't have a ballhawking goal-minded player in the squad.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
I don't think it was, really.

Pretty sure if we'd have genuinely wanted a striker this window, a lot more would have been done in the early parts of the month (and even earlier) to get negotiations advanced and in place where they were ready to be quickly resolved once we could move players on.

There's been no real solid links or serious 'targets'. We've just made half hearted overtures to one or two, but pretty sure there was never any real intent to bring in a striker this window. Perhaps if we'd sold Garnacho, we'd have seen something. Without a big sale, I don't think there's been any real sincere intent to add to the attacking numbers this window.
Click to expand...

Yeah half hearted overtures would sum up our efforts perfectly, Spurs got Tel because they wanted him more than us. Apparently Postecoglou even had a zoom call with him yesterday.

The minute Rashford gave that interview in November we should have acted on sourcing a replacement for January but didn't.
 
Steve Bruce said:
Jim knew what he was getting into. It's no secret we've been run into the ground by the glazers.

What Jim did do though is keep the glazers at the club for the foreseeable future. He didn't pony up what was needed to buy the glazers out and he didn't step aside to allow someone else to.

So I'm not giving Jim any sympathy, he is the reason the glazers are still here.
Click to expand...
Who exactly? There were two bidders, one didn't have anywhere near enough money to fund it personally; I'm not suggesting that the money wasn't potentially there from other sources but he didn't offer proof of funds when asked. So there was one realistic bidder; which is what we've got. So had Radcliffe walked away like you're suggesting he should, we'd have been left with just the Glazers, and the club would be £240m down on their current financial position.
 
croadyman said:
Yeah half hearted overtures would sum up our efforts perfectly, Spurs got Tel because they wanted him more than us. Apparently Postecoglou even had a zoom call with him yesterday.

The minute Rashford gave that interview in November we should have acted on sourcing a replacement for January but didn't.
Click to expand...
new faces in charge, same old clown show
 
Wow. People talking about replacing Hojlund and Zirkzee. This ain't PS5 people. We can't just upgrade on our upgrades in January. We are stuck with these lot for better or for worse.
 
adkb said:
Wow. People talking about replacing Hojlund and Zirkzee. This ain't PS5 people. We can't just upgrade on our upgrades in January. We are stuck with these lot for better or for worse.
Click to expand...
The club were, supposedly at least, looking at a loan striking addition in the January window - up to the last day of the window with Tel.

And are now, reportedly, targeting a striking addition in the summer - a main reason given for the lack of spending in January to have funds for a new striker in the summer.

So hardly 'PS5' levels of naivete from fans. Unless you think all the negotiations from the club, ostensibly looking at loan attacking additions, was BS and they never had any intention of buying one?
 
adkb said:
Wow. People talking about replacing Hojlund and Zirkzee. This ain't PS5 people. We can't just upgrade on our upgrades in January. We are stuck with these lot for better or for worse.
Click to expand...
It's been pretty obvious that Amorim doesn't rate both. Both are not his signings. Both can't score. He played Kobbie ahead of them. There were rumors about Zirkzee and Juve / Napoli. We will try to get rid of both I'm p sure.
 
Martial said:
Click to expand...

The initial fee keeps bouncing around depending on who you ask. Either way, it appears to be the main thing that put us off the deal. We've lambasted the management team previously for caving to the requests of these selling teams.
It's feels like the right decision in this but knowing our luck lately, he'll end up scoring the the winner against us in Europa league final on his way to becoming a world beater.
 
FrankWhite said:
The initial fee keeps bouncing around depending on who you ask. Either way, it appears to be the main thing that put us off the deal. We've lambasted the management team previously for caving to the requests of these selling teams.
It's feels like the right decision in this but knowing our luck lately, he'll end up scoring the the winner against us in Europa league final on his way to becoming a world beater.
Click to expand...
This is a good source at this point of the transaction.
 
JB7 said:
Who exactly? There were two bidders, one didn't have anywhere near enough money to fund it personally; I'm not suggesting that the money wasn't potentially there from other sources but he didn't offer proof of funds when asked. So there was one realistic bidder; which is what we've got. So had Radcliffe walked away like you're suggesting he should, we'd have been left with just the Glazers, and the club would be £240m down on their current financial position.
Click to expand...

I think the glazers got preferred bidder regardless of proof of funds. They wanted to stay and Jim gave them that pathway.

Jim should have either raised the money to buy them out either by himself or headed a consortium. The last thing he should have done was do a deal whereby he's a minority owner that can be superseeded in decisions by the majority owner in the glazers and keep the glazers at the club. It was the worst result we could have got.

If the glazers didn't have that way to stay, they couldn't have afforded united for much longer themselves and we would have been up for sale again in the near future on a more reasonable valuation.

But unfortunately we'll be stuck with what we have for years to come.

Thanks Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.