Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [7th - 9th November 2014]

[jonneymendoza]

Chambers made a lot of mistakes at CB for us, many went unnoticed as he was new etc. but he's no worse at RB than CB, he looks promising but inexperienced, will almost certainly be a good defender one day but he has mistakes in him for now.

fact is, arsenal need to buy a new CB

 

[FrankJH]

Anyway, as I initially mentioned. Woodward informed investors that Utd had no 'expectations' around January and don't anticipate much capital expenditure (spending). Obviously that doesn't make it impossible but if he told investors that then it's fair to say that Utd don't (or didn't at the time) plan on spending much if anything in January.

And that is taken straight out of Gill's playbook from years gone past.

It means absolutely nothing what he says to investors - he isnt likely to say "yes , we are going to spend another £100m in Jan" either.

Its pretty evident that the defence NEEDS some players - even if it means selling current squad members to get fewer in (ie ending up spending less than the club get in)

There are always "get out clauses" with what is said to the media / investors for any club, whether its the CEO, Manager or anyone else.



and while we are at it Woodward even said wages for the same period went DOWN (which some on here said wasnt going to happen, and that these would have risen considerably).

Its also been announced recently that Nani CAN NOT be recalled in Jan - it seems a bit strange for Utd to have put that clause in, but if its there then fair enough.

 

[FrankJH]

There is very little reason for a player to sign a long contract extension unless they are getting a pay rise, if UTD were offering him 60k a week he'd likely just leave and try and get a better deal elsewhere and also more games.

A bit part player at Utd WILL, categorically, make more than a first team key player at Sporting. .

It completely depends on the situation, and having a contract anywhere is better than having no contract, it also depends on moving /etc etc etc if the contract runs down. Given how poor his form was it cant be a gaurentee that he would have got games elsewhere.

Well done for twisting my words, I never said otherwise. His original contract would have had bonuses regarding games played (in EPL and CL ) etc etc etc none of which he would have been paid for , so the POTENTIAL earnings could still have fallen - he certainly wont be on similar money to what he would have been on had he been a 1st XI regular.

The bit about Hernandez, I was simply saying he was better than you were implying with "he hasn't lit the place up", he's been very good when used. I never suggested he wouldn't be an asset, I was basically saying he is likely a bigger asset than you appeared to think he was..

Well done for taking it to the nth degree, anyone who has ever read my posts regarding Chicharito knows I like him as a player, but he is never going to be a Ronaldo or anything like that , and hasnt been good enough to force himself into a regular playing spot for the 1st team thats all I was saying.

Again you're reading the wrong intention with what I said with regards to Mata, papers imply people want players all the time, it's rubbish. Mata is a player who none of the big teams in Spain(teams who saw him play weekly) wanted, he's not seen as good for Spain, he went to Chelsea and was shoved out the door for not being good enough, he looks like he might get shoved out of the door at Utd for not being good enough.

Why would Valencia or Juve want to buy a player who has failed at the top level for more than they can buy and pay other better players? He's weak, not physical enough, lazy, very poor defensively and only sporadically good offensively. Outside of a good freekick there isn't much too his game. He's a £100k a week 10-15mil player for backup at a top club or first team at a lower club. He has a cushy contract and we see much much more often than not that a player will milk a huge contract rather than leave for first team football. These days it's easy enough to simply go out on loan, have the same wage as normal and see out your contract rather than leave.

90% of players in Mata's situation are either being paid to leave, or see out their contracts either barely playing or on loan, either way they get their money.

Totally different leagues and better managers than anyone on here think he would add something to their team, he also isnt CL blocked (which will be valuable in itself in Jan) .

Some players just want to play (especially if its back in their home league) and its less about the money. Its also the case that the Chelsea situation actually improves Utd's chances of getting rid of him (IF LvG wants to) more easily as he wont want to waste even more time sitting on the bench - when it was pretty evident he was unhappy being there not being played.

 

[jonneymendoza]

DM just got ripped apart! :O

 

[FrankJH]

It would also be pretty daft by Man Utd "to protect their asset" - which was a phrase pushed heavily in the media when Nani signed the last contract to put him on SUCH high wages that they would have to pay the player anything that remained over any transfer fee they may get.

In that case they may well have just let him go for free

 

[BaZ87]

And that is taken straight out of Gill's playbook from years gone past.

It means absolutely nothing what he says to investors - he isnt likely to say "yes , we are going to spend another £100m in Jan" either.

Its pretty evident that the defence NEEDS some players - even if it means selling current squad members to get fewer in (ie ending up spending less than the club get in)

There are always "get out clauses" with what is said to the media / investors for any club, whether its the CEO, Manager or anyone else.



and while we are at it Woodward even said wages for the same period went DOWN (which some on here said wasnt going to happen, and that these would have risen considerably).

Its also been announced recently that Nani CAN NOT be recalled in Jan - it seems a bit strange for Utd to have put that clause in, but if its there then fair enough.

Frank you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What's said to investors and what's said to the press are completely different. If Woodward says that Utd don't expect to spend then they don't expect to spend. He's legally obliged to inform investors of the clubs intention - he cannot just lie or spin them some bs like he can the press.

And he is likely to inform investors that the club are expecting to spend a lot if they are. That's exactly what he did in the summer!

Woodward told investors at the previous investor call and again today that January spending is unlikely.

As for Utd's wages - the drop is down to not having to pay bonuses to players related to performance (less games) and being out of the CL. If and when Utd get back into the CL their wagebill will rise back to and beyond last years level without adding to the squad simply because they'll be paying those bonuses again.