Wout Weghorst

Status
Not open for further replies.
A transfer like this is certainly another consequence of having been badly run over the last few years, in that the team has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that a signing in a key position is this desperately needed mid-season, even having spent a lot of money in the summer to make other vitally needed signings. And of course it also reflects on our ownership situation, with no money remaining in what we've been budgeted and the club in a state of uncertainty given the ongoing sale.

But given the circumstances our past errors have put us in, this seems the correct course of action from the football side of the club. They have limited funds, they have an area of the pitch that needs a body, they have to avoid signing ordinary players in a panic. So they've found an option that fits the needs of the manager/team stylistically without adding a mediocre player to squad beyond the end of the season.

We know we've been/are a mess but all they can do at this point is keep digging up as best they can. We made things better last summer and hopefully this summer, with a new owner in situ, we'll be able continue that. For now they just need to keep this season on the road as best they can, even if that involves a less-than-ideal short term patchwork deal.
 
VP89 said:
They bought the club through debt. Hardly money went out of their own pockets in order to buy the club.
Click to expand...
That's how the corporate world works, we live in a capitalist society, live with it. If you buy a company, or a majority stake, using debt or equity, you get to choose how that company is run. Maybe private individuals shouldn't be able to control football clubs, but that is a separate discussion. It didn't end well for Blackburn or Chelsea...

Glazers bought United and they have grown the business massively, and they look like selling it for a huge profit, so they have had a very successfull transaction as far as they are concerned.

As I have said numerous times, I didn't see a single fan protest calling for Woodward to be sacked, and all the hatred was aimed at the Glazers. The response is that they have ultimate control, so should have had the foresight to sack Woodward. If all these fans are so bright, why didn't they realise the issue was with Woodward's day to day running of the club?

Apart from the fact that we have our best manager since SAF, I don't think it's a coincidence that as soon as Woodward left, suddenly we start turning the corner. The fans need to stop listening to Goldbridge's rants and start engaging their brain cells.
 
sullydnl said:
A transfer like this is certainly another consequence of having been badly run over the last few years, in that the team has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that a signing in a key position is this desperately needed mid-season, even having spent a lot of money in the summer to make other vitally needed signings. And of course it also reflects on our ownership situation, with no money remaining in what we've been budgeted and the club in a state of uncertainty given the ongoing sale.

But given the circumstances our past errors have put us in, this seems the correct course of action from the football side of the club. They have limited funds, they have an area of the pitch that needs a body, they have to avoid signing ordinary players in a panic. So they've found an option that fits the needs of the manager/team stylistically without adding a mediocre player to squad beyond the end of the season.

We know we've been/are a mess but all they can do at this point is keep digging up as best they can. We made things better last summer and hopefully this summer, with a new owner in situ, we'll be able continue that. For now they just need to keep this season on the road as best they can, even if that involves a less-than-ideal short term patchwork deal.
Click to expand...

Spot on. However unglamorous and pragmatic this all is, it points in the right direction. Hopefully, the last aftershock from Woodward's final feck up, the re-signing of Ronaldo.
 
VP89 said:
So what do you not understand about them spending the club's money?
Click to expand...
It is not club's money! It is their money because they own the club. It is theirs club. So it is theirs money. How they bought it, how shit they are, how awful owners they are.....is is irrelevant for this topic. The moment they bought it all revenue becomes theirs. So they didn't spend club's money. They were spending their own money.
 
Erik the Red said:
That's how the corporate world works, we live in a capitalist society, live with it. If you buy a company, or a majority stake, using debt or equity, you get to choose how that company is run. Maybe private individuals shouldn't be able to control football clubs, but that is a separate discussion. It didn't end well for Blackburn or Chelsea...

Glazers bought United and they have grown the business massively, and they look like selling it for a huge profit, so they have had a very successfull transaction as far as they are concerned.

As I have said numerous times, I didn't see a single fan protest calling for Woodward to be sacked, and all the hatred was aimed at the Glazers. The response is that they have ultimate control, so should have had the foresight to sack Woodward. If all these fans are so bright, why didn't they realise the issue was with Woodward's day to day running of the club?

Apart from the fact that we have our best manager since SAF, I don't think it's a coincidence that as soon as Woodward left, suddenly we start turning the corner. The fans need to stop listening to Goldbridge's rants and start engaging their brain cells.
Click to expand...
That's true for the first few years. But if the failures keep happening for a decade, it comes back to the people above him who allow him to stay in the job that he is blatantly failing at.
 
Erik the Red said:
That's how the corporate world works, we live in a capitalist society, live with it. If you buy a company, or a majority stake, using debt or equity, you get to choose how that company is run. Maybe private individuals shouldn't be able to control football clubs, but that is a separate discussion. It didn't end well for Blackburn or Chelsea...

Glazers bought United and they have grown the business massively, and they look like selling it for a huge profit, so they have had a very successfull transaction as far as they are concerned.

As I have said numerous times, I didn't see a single fan protest calling for Woodward to be sacked, and all the hatred was aimed at the Glazers. The response is that they have ultimate control, so should have had the foresight to sack Woodward. If all these fans are so bright, why didn't they realise the issue was with Woodward's day to day running of the club?

Apart from the fact that we have our best manager since SAF, I don't think it's a coincidence that as soon as Woodward left, suddenly we start turning the corner. The fans need to stop listening to Goldbridge's rants and start engaging their brain cells.
Click to expand...
fecking hell how long ago was it you last opened your eyes
 
sullydnl said:
A transfer like this is certainly another consequence of having been badly run over the last few years, in that the team has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that a signing in a key position is this desperately needed mid-season, even having spent a lot of money in the summer to make other vitally needed signings. And of course it also reflects on our ownership situation, with no money remaining in what we've been budgeted and the club in a state of uncertainty given the ongoing sale.

But given the circumstances our past errors have put us in, this seems the correct course of action from the football side of the club. They have limited funds, they have an area of the pitch that needs a body, they have to avoid signing ordinary players in a panic. So they've found an option that fits the needs of the manager/team stylistically without adding a mediocre player to squad beyond the end of the season.

We know we've been/are a mess but all they can do at this point is keep digging up as best they can. We made things better last summer and hopefully this summer, with a new owner in situ, we'll be able continue that. For now they just need to keep this season on the road as best they can, even if that involves a less-than-ideal short term patchwork deal.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. It's a smart move as long as they don't let Besiktas hold them to ransom on a big loan fee.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Glazers are shit but i never didn't understand that phrase "they are spending club's money"?
They are owners of this club so club money=Glazers money. Instead paying 80 mil for Antony or Maguire they could have leave that money in club and pay it to themselves through dividends. No?
Click to expand...

Why are you lumping Antony and Maguire together? One is a young and exciting attacking player who’s adjusting to a new league and country. The other is a fecking oaf.

You’re right as the majority share holders, the glazers are spending their own money but if they invested more money into the infrastructure of the club out of their very own pockets, the value of their asset would legitimately be worth £7 billion and not the artificial assessment they’re seeking from buyers.
 
sullydnl said:
A transfer like this is certainly another consequence of having been badly run over the last few years, in that the team has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that a signing in a key position is this desperately needed mid-season, even having spent a lot of money in the summer to make other vitally needed signings. And of course it also reflects on our ownership situation, with no money remaining in what we've been budgeted and the club in a state of uncertainty given the ongoing sale.

But given the circumstances our past errors have put us in, this seems the correct course of action from the football side of the club. They have limited funds, they have an area of the pitch that needs a body, they have to avoid signing ordinary players in a panic. So they've found an option that fits the needs of the manager/team stylistically without adding a mediocre player to squad beyond the end of the season.

We know we've been/are a mess but all they can do at this point is keep digging up as best they can. We made things better last summer and hopefully this summer, with a new owner in situ, we'll be able continue that. For now they just need to keep this season on the road as best they can, even if that involves a less-than-ideal short term patchwork deal.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. We love to criticize our club for everything as if every other club is meticulously planned making no mistakes. Chelsea just got scammed with Feliz. Pool paid 100m for Nunez, City are dropping more points than last year.

Some ridiculous views because we're not signing Mbappe
 
golden_blunder said:
Considering the circumstances, I know no money/very little money is available so I am more than happy to see WW coming in. Certainly a better fit than Depay, or that Cameroonian lad we were linked too. WW will fit ETH brief at least.

fans need to realise that no corporate entity will spend money when a takeover is being sought. I’ve been through 3, you can’t even get sign off for a packet of pencils. So people can spin how they like but it’s just not gonna happen.
Click to expand...
What concerns me the most, is that if Walter Winterbottom (25 games for M Utd in the 30’s) was the first WW, and we count Willie Watson (11 games in early 70’s) as our WWII, then Wout would become our third WW.

In which case we’d be forced to say ‘Welcome, WWIII!’
If anybody mentions Walter Whitehurst (1 game in the early 50’s, I’ll throw a hissy fit!!!)
 
Andycoleno9 said:
It is not club's money! It is their money because they own the club. It is theirs club. So it is theirs money. How they bought it, how shit they are, how awful owners they are.....is is irrelevant for this topic. The moment they bought it all revenue becomes theirs. So they didn't spend club's money. They were spending their own money.
Click to expand...
Legally yes but obviously no one is saying they are illegally spending money here.

They are just pointing to the fact that they are spending money from leveraging up to stupid extents which shouldn't be stood for.
 
Grande said:
What concerns me the most, is that if Walter Winterbottom (25 games for M Utd in the 30’s) was the first WW, and we count Willie Watson (11 games in early 70’s) is our WWII.

In which case we’d be forced to say ‘Welcome, WWIII!’
If anybody mentions Walter Whitehurst (1 game in the early 50’s, I’ll throw a hissy fit!!!)
Click to expand...
Worman Whiteside:confused:
 
ColvaleGoa said:
Also Greenwood Fiasco is to be blamed for the circumstances we find ourselves in!
Click to expand...

Oh yeah he definitely has to take blame,imagine having Weghorst,Greenwood and Sancho instead of Garnacho,Elanga and no ST on Saturday
 
Giggsy13 said:
Seems you’ve completely ignored the huge amount of debt and leveraged buyout piece. The glazers are shit, not sure what you’re trying to argue.
Click to expand...

I would've thought it was obvious what I was arguing - that the assertion that the Glazer's spent none of their own money is false. No need to infer anything else from my post.
 
Grande said:
What concerns me the most, is that if Walter Winterbottom (25 games for M Utd in the 30’s) was the first WW, and we count Willie Watson (11 games in early 70’s) as our WWII, then Wout would become our third WW.

In which case we’d be forced to say ‘Welcome, WWIII!’
If anybody mentions Walter Whitehurst (1 game in the early 50’s, I’ll throw a hissy fit!!!)
Click to expand...
Crikey what a sign of things to come. World war 3
 
Redanian said:
I would've thought it was obvious what I was arguing - that the assertion that the Glazer's spent none of their own money is false. No need to infer anything else from my post.
Click to expand...
Your assertion that their assertion was false is false.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
It is not club's money! It is their money because they own the club.
Click to expand...

As someone who owns a business, I can assure you you are completely wrong here. They can take money out of the club in the form of dividends (which require board approval to issue), but any money the club makes is the club's money.
 
webbthepostie said:
Your assertion that their assertion was false is false.
Click to expand...

The Glazers spent upwards of £800 million purchasing the club, of which £270 million was their own money, and the remainder making up the leveraged debt portion of the buyout. This information is all readily available if you can be bothered to go look for it.
 
Redanian said:
The Glazers spent upwards of £800 million purchasing the club, of which £270 million was their own money, and the remainder making up the leveraged debt portion of the buyout. This information is all readily available if you can be bothered to go look for it.
Click to expand...
They used holding companies.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Glazers are shit but i never didn't understand that phrase "they are spending club's money"?
They are owners of this club so club money=Glazers money. Instead paying 80 mil for Antony or Maguire they could have leave that money in club and pay it to themselves through dividends. No?
Click to expand...
People think football clubs are not businesses but an institution owned by the fans. Hence all profits belong to the club and not the owners. Therefore any spending from profits is spending the clubs money unless the Glaziers put the cash in directly from their own pockets which they didnt. Well except the 300 mill or so to buy the club.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
It is not club's money! It is their money because they own the club. It is theirs club. So it is theirs money. How they bought it, how shit they are, how awful owners they are.....is is irrelevant for this topic. The moment they bought it all revenue becomes theirs. So they didn't spend club's money. They were spending their own money.
Click to expand...
Yep, in the same way it's "the banks house", if you have a mortgage.
 
UpWithRivers said:
People think football clubs are not businesses but an institution owned by the fans. Hence all profits belong to the club and not the owners. Therefore any spending from profits is spending the clubs money unless the Glaziers put the cash in directly from their own pockets which they didnt. Well except the 300 mill or so to buy the club.
Click to expand...
That's a naive view though.
 
padzilla said:
The fact we are looking at signing a striker on loan who, with all due respect, is nowhere near close to being good enough says it all about how this club is run.

It's almost a tribute act to the heady days of Ed Woodward and Ole bringing in Ighalo who scored a total of zero PL goals for us in 12 appearances.

Let's be honest if this was Liverpool signing him we would be pissing ourselves laughing.
Click to expand...
Nothing like the respect due. This guy will surprise you how good he is.
 
croadyman said:
Oh yeah he definitely has to take blame,imagine having Weghorst,Greenwood and Sancho instead of Garnacho,Elanga and no ST on Saturday
Click to expand...
I think it would have been difficult to foresee Ronaldo's hissy fit interview, Greenwood's misdemeanours and Sancho's form and confidence falling off a cliff. Martial injuries and inconsistencies are pretty consistent, so should have been foreseen. However, missing those three players has left us with only Rashford, Antony and a sometimes fit Martial as a first choice strike force. We are lucky to have witnessed the breakthrough of Garnacho, who I think is genuinely a special talent, as cover for LW. However, cover for the other two positions is needed, and with Sancho's return hopefully imminent, a striker is logically he most needed position. WW is exactly the type of striker ETH wants, and is quite similar to Haller in many ways. Although I was mocked for suggesting Kieffer Moore, he is a big target man who may not be the most technically gifted footballer, he creates havoc for defenders, and will chip in with a few goals. ETH knows we aren't getting Kane, Haaland or Mbappe, certainly not this January, and rather than bring in the wrong player, like Gakpo who is a left winger, or Felix who is a second striker for a huge loan fee, he is keeping his powder dry for the summer, and bringing in the player who most fits his needs. Bringing in the wrong player not only wastes cash, it creates disharmony in the squad as Garnacho would rightly be upset if he was relegated to third choice LW, although personally I think Gakpo would be behind Garnacho. WW is an experienced Dutch international, and ETH, also being Dutch, will have monitored his whole career, and knows he is exactly what he is looking for. Added to this, WW realises this is a massive opportunity for him towards the end of his career, to play at one of the biggest clubs in the world, so of course he is desperate to come.
 
padzilla said:
The fact we are looking at signing a striker on loan who, with all due respect, is nowhere near close to being good enough says it all about how this club is run.

It's almost a tribute act to the heady days of Ed Woodward and Ole bringing in Ighalo who scored a total of zero PL goals for us in 12 appearances.

Let's be honest if this was Liverpool signing him we would be pissing ourselves laughing.
Click to expand...
Herman Toothrot said:
What's your alternative plan? Bear in mind we overspent in the summer, there is no money left, the club is up for sale and the owners have all but checked out.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m curious as to what other options/routes people think we should be going down and why they don’t think EtH has earned our trust on this so far?
 
TheReligion said:
Yeah I’m curious as to what other options/routes people think we should be going down and why they don’t think EtH has earned our trust on this so far?
Click to expand...
Exactly this... in the summer nit many trusted ETH (including me for Martinez) he has earned our trust now!
 
Grande said:
I’m surprised, as when I hear Dutch pronunciation of words like woord, wapen, wekker, I hear very clearly the closed lip-vs-tooth-sound and the voice, the labiodental voiced fricative that is noted as ‘v’ in phonemes and in English is normally written by the letter v as in vote. Not at all as the English pronounce the letter w, which is a rounded vowel, almost like a short ‘o’. The letter v in Dutch seems mostly to be expressed as a semi-voiced, semi-breathed fricative, somewhere between ‘v’ and ‘f’. I’m not sure the sound is used in British English apart from in word combinations like ‘i love fish’.

This, and what the other (Dutch?) poster wrotes, seems to me to go together with the following:

https://www.heardutchhere.net/DutchPronunciation.html#W

From which I’d expect Wout to be pronounced more or less like v-out using English pronunciation.
Click to expand...
Redanian said:
There isn't really an equivalent in English, but it's closer to a soft V than a W.
Click to expand...
I suppose my perspective is coloured by my Dutch accent and how I perceive English as a non-native speaker myself; but the Dutch 'w' I'm used to isn't represented very well on that wegpage Grande quotes, where I agree there is a sort of 'v' sound at the start of their pronunciation of e.g. 'woord'. Basically take away that 'v' sound (almost a breath) at the very start of the pronunciation, and you're much closer to how I would define Dutch 'w'. So maybe accents are getting in the way here, cause I'm from the south and pronunciations on that webpage sounds very western to me ('g' and 'r' are easy markers for that). Weghorst himself is from the east, so maybe someone from there would better be able to help; maybe @Stadjer (who is from the northeast I think).

One way or another though, while English 'v' might be a decent approximation here, probably somewhere halfway between 'v' and 'w' might work better.

And yes, this is an excellent use of everyone's time.
 
Any rumours about a Piers Morgan interview yet?...that's what all the top pros do these days when they want out of there club/contract.

Get in done Wout!
 
Andycoleno9 said:
It is not club's money! It is their money because they own the club. It is theirs club. So it is theirs money. How they bought it, how shit they are, how awful owners they are.....is is irrelevant for this topic. The moment they bought it all revenue becomes theirs. So they didn't spend club's money. They were spending their own money.
Click to expand...

I think the reason people view it this way is two fold.

First they arent just allowed unfettered access to the clubs revenues. Yes, the money belongs to the club they own, but they still have to find legal ways to access portions of that money (dividends); whereas describing it as “their” money suggests they every penny is theirs to do with what they choose - which is innacurate.

The second reason people describe it that way is to differentiate Uniteds financial position from a club like Chelsea where the owner (under Abramovich) puts their own money into the club, rather than purely relying on revenues generated by the club through footballing activities.

If the Glazers leave tomorrow they cant take the clubs revenues with them. The club’s CAPACITY to spend is based entirely on how much revenue the club generates, even if the glazers are ultimately the ones in charge of deciding how much of that capacity is used (for the time that they are in charge).

So whilst you might be correct that the glazers currently control how the money is spent, people dont view it as “their” money because the money will still be there regardless of whether the Glazers are or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.