watch out for short selling
Woodward (old thread)
- Thread starter smallred
- Start date
- Status
watch out for short selling
Everything was done in writing, for that purpose.
The intermediaries involved were Mata's father, his English solicitor and an independent solicitor. Ferguson and Gill had absolutely nothing to do with the transfer.
sorry but that's sheepish to me from Ed. He could easily say "rooney's not on the table" but then again Woodward doesn seem like a tough negotiator
Well it bloody worked didn't it?
Do some people have expectations of him riding into Stamford Bridge on a golden steed with his sword held aloft, screaming "Give me Juan Mata or I will take your heads instead!"?
Fixed
Ah thanks, I'm guilty of going off topic there.
Well you're not being very open minded then to the sensitivity of the transfer. For me it sounds like Ed played his hand perfectly.
Having someone from Mata's side ensured that the deal pushed through, if Ed went to the table then Chelsea may have told us to feck off if we weren't going to offer up Rooney, a bargaining chip that they couldn't use against Mata's father.
We managed to buy Mata and for me that's given him a stay of execution so I'll decide after the close of this transfer window. (Would like Gill back though).
@Feeky Magee how are cabbage prices today?
Ed Woodward deciding who should be the next transfer target...
Volatile
What did Gill do that was so great?
It's probably that he doesn't have a face that irritating like poor old Ed
Gill does look the part.
Gill's record as our chief transfer negotiator was dismal. A litany of failure: Torres, Sneijder, Benzema, Sanchez, Moura, Hazard.. Basically, unless it was a low grade cheap punt, or the guy was already playing in English football, we didn't get him. When you think of all the quality players who came to the Prem in the last 6/7 years from Spain in particular, often for moderate transfer fees and affordable wages, and the fact that we didn't sign a single one of them, it's very frustrating.
Edit: Badly worded post: 'low grade cheap punt' applies to the period after 2006. Vidic and Evra were cheap, but hardly low grade. But they and Michael Carrick, signed in the next window, were our last real successes in the market. With the exception of De Gea.
Last edited:
Yeah our policy for the last 6/7 years really fecked us over.
I really don't understand why Ed Woodward still has a job.
Why is there fluctuation. What are the good or promising things Woodward has done that weight up favourably against paying £28m for a player with a £24m buyout clause, and delaying the transfer for months in order to do so?
Would it actually have been possible for him to do his job any worse than that? It would literally have worked out far, far better, if United had no one doing Woodward's job and just paid the buyout fee.
I know it's not that simple but it's ultimately his responsibility, and everything he did last summer proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he's not capable of handling it.
If you had to bail out of a fighter jet because the pilot took off and then didn't know how the controls worked, woulld you immediately get back into another fighter jet with the same pilot?
Why is there fluctuation. What are the good or promising things Woodward has done that weight up favourably against paying £28m for a player with a £24m buyout clause, and delaying the transfer for months in order to do so?
Would it actually have been possible for him to do his job any worse than that? It would literally have worked out far, far better, if United had no one doing Woodward's job and just paid the buyout fee.
I know it's not that simple but it's ultimately his responsibility, and everything he did last summer proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he's not capable of handling it.
If you had to bail out of a fighter jet because the pilot took off and then didn't know how the controls worked, woulld you immediately get back into another fighter jet with the same pilot?
Iirc, Fellaini was screwed over rather than United, he gave up £4m for the deal to happen
We have passed up on some decent players to be fair in that time.
I still don't know how Wigan managed to get our trousers down to the tune of £16 million for Valencia.
Yeah, but we got a player 2 months later than we should have, and saved absolutely nothing in doing so.
Then there was the Fabregas thing, the Herrera thing, the Real Madrid thing...or when he flew back from our tour to handle some "urgent transfer business", and then it turned out it was just so we could make the same bid for Fabregas, again...as if Woodward needed for some reason to personally be in Manchester for this to happen.
Nothing we did last summer made any sense. I could sit here for hours thinking up the most plausable possible explanations for it all, then choosing to believe each one, and the conclusion I would come to would still be that Woodward is a massive idiot...just slightly less of a massive idiot than I'd thought previously.
The deal could have fell off any possible way. By your logic, more clubs should go this route since you take away the possibility of getting offers for your star players not so?
Mourinho was happy for Mata to leave as they had already played us and I believe the other title rivals twice. Mata wanted to get game time in hopes of making the World Cup squad. Not sure the move was as sensitive as you are making out. Imo, it was the perfect time for Chelsea to sell him as Mata could have helped us take points off of the title challengers which would also help Chelsea in their title run. Obviously, it didnt pan out that way.
It worked yes but why is Ed getting so much credit for it when he had little hand in the negotiations? If anything credit should go to the intermediaries for making it a swift, smooth process. Honestly it just seemed like Ed was trying to make himself look better by briefing that info to Taylor. It's not like Chelsea were against selling Mata. Mourinho clearly said he wouldn stand in Mata's way if he wanted to go. Woodward would have looked better if he actually played more of a part in the negotiations and got Mata without having to make Rooney part of the deal. Instead other people did it
A) You have no idea what his hand was
B) If the buck stops with him when stuff goes wrong then it should also stop with him when something comes off nicely.
C) Cabbage
Not really. Mourinho really wanted Rooney, so if it wasn't a case of Mata's team forcing the move through then it may not have happened.
You're saying it's my logic, but I'm basing that on the idea that this is why Edward wasn't part of the negotiations if true so it's hardly my logic. What other reason would you have for ed not being part of the negotiations if true?
Okay so if we have no idea what hand he had in this why are we even attributing any credit at all?
on B) the buck stopped with the intermediaries clearly. If they didnt find an agreement, it's unlikely an overall deal would have been agreed
Mata's team had to force the initial contact and say "Juan wishes to leave" but how the deal is conducted and hashed out can take different directions.
There could be different reasons. it depends on what you believe. From Woodward's side, it was to avoid negotiating Rooney. This was a transfer Moyes didn't even want. From a different side, it was the necessity to get a player like Mata in and with Ed under pressure due to the past summer, some within the club felt it best the deal be done through intermediaries. But once again, depends on what you want to believe. If you want to take what Ed briefed to Taylor, fine by me but what's happened since then hasn't really filled me with any confidence.
We dont really know what happened with the Kroos pursuit either. We just have one side of the story (Woodward's)
Don't think it's irritating. But, it's a bit weird to see the head of operations with the face of a 13 year old, can't take him serious. It's clear that's why is almost always sporting a beard.
You have to give him credit though, he is two years older than Giggs and is our vice chairman and head of operations.
Both of your sentences can be answered with "because he's in charge".
That doesnt quite work though since we know there are many variables involved in a transfer. If the intermediaries didnt find an agreement I strongly doubt the deal would have went through if we take Ed's version of the story (being he didn want to be pulled into negotiating Rooney). Ed "being in charge" can do little about that. It's just a vacuous statement
Do you know what "being in charge" means? It means you are responsible for everything.
Where are the f*cking mods. This is a joke. We have ONE cabbage-specific thread on what's supposed to be a cabbage-friendly forum and it's getting taken over by football.
I wouldn fault him if the intermediaries didnt find an agreement since they are by definition an independent party out of his control. So in this case, no he was not in responsible for everything. Is he responsible for Chelsea being a willing party in this transfer? He's our chief negotiator yet according to him he chose not to negotiate and let others do it.
Too busy not curving @Damien
So they signed Mata completely independently without any sort of brief from someone at Manchester United?
Cabbage.
Would you like some onions with your cabbage? it takes two to tango. (CFC & MUFC)
Mata? But still for me the wrong signing for far more money. I personally don't get this big uproar over 4m. The club bends over and takes another sponsor in the ringhole and they deposit a creamy 4m into the kitty to cover it.
More should be made of why they didn't just meet the minimum release clause for Herrera. I'd not say to much over that because I am not sure who was the one that fecked that one up. What would have been the reaction if Herrera had flopped for 30+?.. I am not saying he would have, I think he'd have come in and been a fantastic addition. But this is all on such a razors edge that a miss here, a punt there, a win here a punt there. It can't really be used as a blade to stab the CE in the back.
7m can get you Hernandez/Vidic/Evra (or nearly etc) but 7m can get you Bebe. That is just how we've had to operate because we don't blow up to 100m on a few players every season.
Agreed
There was a C before creamy.
Yeah I had it on club but initially I had them just bolded, not underlined, and it didn't stand it because it blended into the l. Ok good talk.
Feeks.- Status