Be careful what you wish for..... yes Liverpool look like they MAY have regressed, but all that means is a boring Premier League this season. City are light years ahead of the pack - Scottish Premiership has a two horse race at least.
De Bruyne and Foden supplying Haaland is just silly. He will be top goalscorer by a distance this year if he stays fit. Bloke is an absolute unit, rapid, decent in the air and makes such intelligent runs. Made for the prem
Be careful what you wish for..... yes Liverpool look like they MAY have regressed, but all that means is a boring Premier League this season. City are light years ahead of the pack - Scottish Premiership has a two horse race at least.
The excitement this year will probably come in the battle for top 4 and relegation with (based purely on this weekend) no real standout terrible sides.
Be careful what you wish for..... yes Liverpool look like they MAY have regressed, but all that means is a boring Premier League this season. City are light years ahead of the pack - Scottish Premiership has a two horse race at least.
The excitement this year will probably come in the battle for top 4 and relegation with (based purely on this weekend) no real standout terrible sides.
Don't know about that. United looked pretty awful :-)
De Bruyne and Foden supplying Haaland is just silly. He will be top goalscorer by a distance this year if he stays fit. Bloke is an absolute unit, rapid, decent in the air and makes such intelligent runs. Made for the prem
A big plus for City is that he isn't going to the world cup so he'll get a good rest then.
De Bruyne and Foden supplying Haaland is just silly. He will be top goalscorer by a distance this year if he stays fit. Bloke is an absolute unit, rapid, decent in the air and makes such intelligent runs. Made for the prem
A big plus for City is that he isn't going to the world cup so he'll get a good rest then.
Give me a boring prem season of city winning it and no one near them Over the bin dippers , spuds, chelsea, Man U , Arsenal , hammers etc just imagine a world with spurs as champions or winning anything , vomit inducing of the highest order
Give me a boring prem season of city winning it and no one near them Over the bin dippers , spuds, chelsea, Man U , Arsenal , hammers etc just imagine a world with spurs as champions or winning anything , vomit inducing of the highest order
Spurs won't win the title. They've made some decent signings but they're still a long way behind City and Pool. Still not the best at the back and even under Conte I think they'll concede too many.
In the space of 10 years the gap between United and City is about 50, the two clubs aren’t even close on the pitch anymore
If you put over a billion into one club and take over a billion out of another that's what happens.
Man Utd have spent 1.4 billion in the past 11 years, the most in Europe Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
But one of the reasons Man United (well anyone actually) were so successful for so long was they generate much more income than almost anyone else. I bet their budget is relatively (compared to everyone else) smaller than it was 15 years ago.
On the net spend they have been awful at selling players, as bad as they have been at buying them.
Of course but whilst the owners are clearly quite controversial and not liked, they still spend over 100 million every summer. City are miles ahead of the likes of Utd purely because they’ve spent it much better
It's a world away from the likes of us, but in todays market spending 100m every summer isn't that out of the ordinary and certainly not for a club of United's size with their revenue. For the level they want to be at, that's one world class player these days. Players they could really do with, like Kane or Declan Rice would cost even more.
As you say though their issue isn't really how much they spend, it's how badly they spend it. City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and now probably Arsenal too have spent far better in recent seasons.
I agree, it’s not an over the top amount when you consider revenue. But everyone thinks City continue to buy titles but Utd have lost more money in the last decade. I can’t believe how badly it’s been spent, other than Bruno I’m struggling to think of anyone who turned out to be decent business. Wan-Bissaka, Fred and Lindelof cost about 150 between them!
It's not what they have spent in the last 5 or 6 years. It's what they didn't spend 10-12 years ago. Look at the team and the age of them when Fergie won his last title.
They went from being clearly ahead to 3rd or 4th and have now gone to 5th or 6th.
Its funny because it's United and watching their fans melt down is hilarious but no one would find it funny if it happened to their club.
In the space of 10 years the gap between United and City is about 50, the two clubs aren’t even close on the pitch anymore
If you put over a billion into one club and take over a billion out of another that's what happens.
Man Utd have spent 1.4 billion in the past 11 years, the most in Europe Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
But one of the reasons Man United (well anyone actually) were so successful for so long was they generate much more income than almost anyone else. I bet their budget is relatively (compared to everyone else) smaller than it was 15 years ago.
On the net spend they have been awful at selling players, as bad as they have been at buying them.
Of course but whilst the owners are clearly quite controversial and not liked, they still spend over 100 million every summer. City are miles ahead of the likes of Utd purely because they’ve spent it much better
It's a world away from the likes of us, but in todays market spending 100m every summer isn't that out of the ordinary and certainly not for a club of United's size with their revenue. For the level they want to be at, that's one world class player these days. Players they could really do with, like Kane or Declan Rice would cost even more.
As you say though their issue isn't really how much they spend, it's how badly they spend it. City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and now probably Arsenal too have spent far better in recent seasons.
I agree, it’s not an over the top amount when you consider revenue. But everyone thinks City continue to buy titles but Utd have lost more money in the last decade. I can’t believe how badly it’s been spent, other than Bruno I’m struggling to think of anyone who turned out to be decent business. Wan-Bissaka, Fred and Lindelof cost about 150 between them!
It's not what they have spent in the last 5 or 6 years. It's what they didn't spend 10-12 years ago. Look at the team and the age of them when Fergie won his last title.
They went from being clearly ahead to 3rd or 4th and have now gone to 5th or 6th.
Its funny because it's United and watching their fans melt down is hilarious but no one would find it funny if it happened to their club.
I think it's a mixture between the two. Agree that they lacked spending between 2009 and 2012 (other than Van Persie really) and it was no surprise they slipped down a bit. However, they've since spent enough money to be competitive. They could have an XI like this: De Gea Wan-Bissaka Maguire Martinez Shaw Fred Matic Pogba Di Maria Fernandes Sancho Lukaku
Total cost of that team? Circa 700mil. Unbelievable.
The problems United have are off the field as much as on. Until they hire the right executives/management in key roles then they'll always be struggling.
City and Liverpool for example obviously have Guardiola and Klopp, but off the field they have very good people working with them.
United don't have that, they're a mess. The team struggles and their solution is always to just change the manager. But he can only be as good as the people working behind the scenes with him.
The problems United have are off the field as much as on. Until they hire the right executives/management in key roles then they'll always be struggling.
City and Liverpool for example obviously have Guardiola and Klopp, but off the field they have very good people working with them.
United don't have that, they're a mess. The team struggles and their solution is always to just change the manager. But he can only be as good as the people working behind the scenes with him.
Totally agree, they are a total mess. The appointment of Rangnick to then supposedly go upstairs was the latest in a long line of poor decision making.
The problems United have are off the field as much as on. Until they hire the right executives/management in key roles then they'll always be struggling.
City and Liverpool for example obviously have Guardiola and Klopp, but off the field they have very good people working with them.
United don't have that, they're a mess. The team struggles and their solution is always to just change the manager. But he can only be as good as the people working behind the scenes with him.
Totally agree, they are a total mess. The appointment of Rangnick to then supposedly go upstairs was the latest in a long line of poor decision making.
To be honest i don't think the plan of getting Rangnick in as a temp whilst they waited for Ten Hag, with a view to moving him upstairs was necessarily a bad idea. They need a football man making football decisions and he could've been a very good footballing director. For the past 10 years or so they had Ed Woodward doing it and he made consistently bad decisions for many years, expensive signings not good enough, expensive contracts given to underperforming players (Jones, Bailly, Mata, Martial etc).
Arsenal are a good example as they were a bit of a mess and underperforming, bad signings etc, but then appointed Edu and things have improved for them since.
Rangnick could've worked well with Ten Hag but whether they decided to get rid once he came out basically listing everything that was wrong with the club, or whether it was Ten Hag saying i want to do it my way, i don't know. Yes Rangnick took the Austria job and 'resigned' but it's pretty well documented he was on his way out anyway.
The problems United have are off the field as much as on. Until they hire the right executives/management in key roles then they'll always be struggling.
City and Liverpool for example obviously have Guardiola and Klopp, but off the field they have very good people working with them.
United don't have that, they're a mess. The team struggles and their solution is always to just change the manager. But he can only be as good as the people working behind the scenes with him.
Totally agree, they are a total mess. The appointment of Rangnick to then supposedly go upstairs was the latest in a long line of poor decision making.
To be honest i don't think the plan of getting Rangnick in as a temp whilst they waited for Ten Hag, with a view to moving him upstairs was necessarily a bad idea. They need a football man making football decisions and he could've been a very good footballing director. For the past 10 years or so they had Ed Woodward doing it and he made consistently bad decisions for many years, expensive signings not good enough, expensive contracts given to underperforming players (Jones, Bailly, Mata, Martial etc).
Arsenal are a good example as they were a bit of a mess and underperforming, bad signings etc, but then appointed Edu and things have improved for them since.
Rangnick could've worked well with Ten Hag but whether they decided to get rid once he came out basically listing everything that was wrong with the club, or whether it was Ten Hag saying i want to do it my way, i don't know. Yes Rangnick took the Austria job and 'resigned' but it's pretty well documented he was on his way out anyway.
I agree it could have been decent, I wasn't particularly critical of the move at the time. But he come in, wasn't successful on the pitch and then left. In hindsight it was a poor move, just like our signings of Gunter and Watson made sense at the time but turned out badly.
To be honest they should've gone for Conte at the time, but i doubt the Glazers wanted a manager who would've been very vocal in demanding funds/players and telling it how it was.
To be honest they should've gone for Conte at the time, but i doubt the Glazers wanted a manager who would've been very vocal in demanding funds/players and telling it how it was.
Couldn't believe they didn't, was the obvious appointment staring them in the face. You're probably spot on though, wasn't a Glazer appointment.
Anyone got an opinion on Wesley Fofana? Chelsea have had a bid of 70m turned down, Leicester apparently want at least 80m.
He's played less than 40 league games in 2 years and broke his leg last year. I watch a LOT of football and i don't think i've ever seen the guy play.
Is he a future star or are Leicester taking Chelsea to the cleaners here?
Two Leicester ST mates have been absolutely raving about him. From what I remember, he was playing very well before he broke his leg. IIRC, he came on as sub at LB against Spurs in the 2-3 when Bergwyn when mental in injury time. He's a unit and proper quick. And he's a left-footed centre-back which to find one available is a rarety.
Comments
Who on earth is running transfers there, scoured the world for a striker and thought yeah he's the one we need.
Over the bin dippers , spuds, chelsea, Man U , Arsenal , hammers etc
just imagine a world with spurs as champions or winning anything , vomit inducing of the highest order
They went from being clearly ahead to 3rd or 4th and have now gone to 5th or 6th.
Its funny because it's United and watching their fans melt down is hilarious but no one would find it funny if it happened to their club.
De Gea
Wan-Bissaka Maguire Martinez Shaw
Fred Matic Pogba
Di Maria Fernandes Sancho
Lukaku
Total cost of that team? Circa 700mil. Unbelievable.
City and Liverpool for example obviously have Guardiola and Klopp, but off the field they have very good people working with them.
United don't have that, they're a mess. The team struggles and their solution is always to just change the manager. But he can only be as good as the people working behind the scenes with him.
We were laughing and saying that any cats watching would be celebrating! 😂🐱
Arsenal are a good example as they were a bit of a mess and underperforming, bad signings etc, but then appointed Edu and things have improved for them since.
Rangnick could've worked well with Ten Hag but whether they decided to get rid once he came out basically listing everything that was wrong with the club, or whether it was Ten Hag saying i want to do it my way, i don't know. Yes Rangnick took the Austria job and 'resigned' but it's pretty well documented he was on his way out anyway.
He's played less than 40 league games in 2 years and broke his leg last year. I watch a LOT of football and i don't think i've ever seen the guy play.
Is he a future star or are Leicester taking Chelsea to the cleaners here?
He's a unit and proper quick. And he's a left-footed centre-back which to find one available is a rarety.