** ALL NEW (WITH RULES) Summer Transfer Window 2012/2013 Season Rumours/Signings **
- Thread starter Andybtsn
- Start date
- Status
Not like Modric, but we don't have to keep playing 4-4-2, we should look at moving to 4-2-3-1 and have Rooney up top.
He could play at the tip of a 4-4-2 diamond as well I suppose.
Give over. Ronaldo cost £17m as a 17 year old, that'd probably be closer to £22-25m today. Ronaldo didn't really reach Hazard's current level until he was 22/23, Hazard is 21.
You think City needed Aguero? No, they had three world class strikers. Aguero just won them the league, literally. If you think Nani or Young are anywhere near as good as Hazard is/could be you're nuts.
You think City needed Aguero? No, they had three world class strikers. Aguero just won them the league, literally. If you think Nani or Young are anywhere near as good as Hazard is/could be you're nuts.
THIS
Here's one for the one's thinking we already have enough good wingers. What if he is bought to play out on the left so that Ashley young can played more inside than he currently is. Fergie keeps pushing him inside and with Owen and Berbatov going or gone, would it be beyond the realms of possibility to see Young deployed as a striker with pace to play off Rooney. The potential signing off Hazard gives us options, not take them away.
Let me get this right, we've been asking for real money to be invested in the team for years now, yet people don't want us to pay around £30m for possibly the hottest young talent currently playing in Europe? Yeah ok then.
If you don't think Utd are lacking creativity in midfield (specifically central where Hazard is comfortable playing) then you've not been watching us for the last 3 or 4 years.
And please don't give me Modric as a better option, older, probably cost more, you know what you're getting with him, and while he's a class act, his performances in the league aren't exactly earth shattering.
I'll believe it when he's signed, but I seriously hope it's true.
Here's one for the one's thinking we already have enough good wingers. What if he is bought to play out on the left so that Ashley young can played more inside than he currently is. Fergie keeps pushing him inside and with Owen and Berbatov going or gone, would it be beyond the realms of possibility to see Young deployed as a striker with pace to play off Rooney. The potential signing off Hazard gives us options, not take them away.
If we show we are willing to invest big in the squad, while having the most successful manager in history after a season in which we lost on goal difference while playing with what's been described as the worst squad we've had in 20 years I wouldn't think it's that baseless.
You're entitled to your opinion and it may be right but believing otherwise certainly isn't baseless.
Virtually no club pays the whole of a transfer fee up front.
It would be X amount now, and X amount over so many months, in fact, thats how united have paid for almost all of their big purchases over the past 20 years or so.
Buying Hazard for 30 odd million would still leave plenty of cash to purchase 2 or 3 other players.
As for Modric, at 27 and nothing more than a slightly more mobile Carrick, you are saying £30 odd million is a sound investment?
The only thing Modric has proven over the past 3 years is that he isnt worth anything like the figures quoted for him.
I was thinking it would more likely be 4 - 1 - 2 - 3 / 4 - 1 - 4 - 1
Sorry thats just wrong - you cant compare Ronaldo's performance levels at Utd to Hazard's at Ligue 1 so easily EPL is SO much more technical
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,508
- Location
- LU7
I thought I spotted Gill in the background of a pic with Chelsea celebrating with the trophy. Couldn't work out what he was doing there or if it was even him. I'm sure now!i noticed Gill at the champions league final last night,surely he went straight to france after the game to get hazard to sign his contract
According to some reports, Gill would have been at the match to tell Roman that he can't buy Rafael from us. Considering Roman had just won the one trophy he'd been after since he bought Chelsea, I reckon this news about not getting Rafael would have devastated him!
It was £12.25m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristiano_Ronaldo#Manchester_United
Admittedly there may have been clauses in the deal that nudged it up to £17m but I believe we paid £12.25m for Ronaldo in all.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Mike Ashley's taken this decision because of how previous signings for Newcastle were hurting the club years later due to the monthly installments adding up wasn't it? Not saying you're wrong, just checking on why they do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 6,735
- Location
- On another planet
if united do get hazard and he lives up to the hype,then shirt sales and other endorsements alone would pay his transfer fee
They interview players at half time in French football? How odd.
Inside 34 minutes, no less.
Inside 34 minutes, no less.
Didnt know that.
I know it was paying for Keegans spending spree a long time after he left.
Even taking into account the virtual fire sale when the banks pulled the plug and started demanding their money back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,508
- Location
- LU7
I thought I read a while back that everything from the official Megastore at Old Trafford goes to Nike as it is a Nike run operation. I'm not sure how that affects online sales direct from Man Utd or sales of shirts in third party shops. I can't imagine that Utd get nothing from shirt sales. If Nike got less than 33% or Utd got less than 50% of the total sales I'd be shocked. But then I'm not in the business of negotiating business deals between sportswear manufacturers and football clubs!
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 6,735
- Location
- On another planet
well loads of people will be buying united shirts with his name on wont they and if he does become a big player then nike and other company's will be wanting to sponsor him,so the club will get a cut from that surely
i guess its whats in his contract for image rights and stuff
It was £12.25m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristiano_Ronaldo#Manchester_United
Admittedly there may have been clauses in the deal that nudged it up to £17m but I believe we paid £12.25m for Ronaldo in all.
Ah it might have been Euros I was thinking of. Still, Ronaldo was an expensive buy for a young player playing in a 'worse' league. I don't think £30m for Hazard is any worse than that. Especially given the fact that City can drop £30-40m on players like Aguero who can win them the league, £25m on Nasri who can keep Agueros bench seat warm. We do have good front/wide/creative players, but Hazard has the potential to be a whole level above all of them.
City and even Chelsea to an extent, have players that can change games on their own, we haven't had that since Ronaldo left.
As I said it depends on the % upfront - as he is hot property, it wouldnt be beyond the realms of possibiility for the % to be much higher upfront as a bargaining tool.
It depends on how much SAF has available, no-one actually knows how much he has for transfers.
Modric plays completely differently from Carrick (at Spurs anyway) so its impossible to know. You are of course welcome to your opinion, but given Scholes' / Giggs' age, and the question mark over Cleverley (in not even completing 1/2 a season at top level), it would be good to have some proper mobile experience in the AM position
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 1,763
- Location
- Hokkaido
I would much rather we spent £30m+ on Hazard than on Modric.
- Status