** Official ** Summer 2010 Transfer Thread - Signings, Sightings and Rumor's in Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
skippi90 said:
The op he was going to have was for his groin, not his ankle.
Click to expand...

But if he'd have had the op he wouldnt be out with his ankle!! Plus he did his ankle scoring the third on Friday, so shouldnt have played again. Not that I think Spurs will miss him much really.. he's been mostly average this year. He scored 18 league goals last season which on the face of it looks ok, but when u take into account he scored 9 against Hull/Wigan it doesn't look that good.
 
jakeke said:
I thought Neville HAS to be on a wind-up, then I remembered Ferguson moaning about a similar thing recently, that's a seriously staggering lack of self-awareness. Over the Premiership era they are the quintessential 'big spenders'. What a ridiculous idiot. Haven't they spent like £30m this summer alone? Is he retarded?
Click to expand...

I'm not just singling you out but you people are ****ing morons if you can't tell the difference between the way United bought players and the way the likes of City, Chelsea, Real and Barca have. Until the Glazers came along and buggered everything up, we were entirely self-sufficient. We were able to buy the players we did because we had a sufficient income to do so (and still made a profit every year).

Those other clubs are in debt up to their eyeballs and bankrolled by their owners, and that's despite Real and Barca receiving extremely lucrative TV deals. United undoubtedly spent a lot of money in the past two decades but only the money we had earned through intelligent financial and commercial management.

Furthermore, although we have spent a lot of money this summer it has been spread across several low risk investments. If the likes of Smalling or Chicarito don't make it at the top level, we will almost definitely recoup the initial fee from another club.

Just like Arsenal we have always (pre-Glazer) spent within our means. Is that clear enough for you?
 
skippi90 said:
Could work well, but I really don't have faith in Crouch or Pav, and Keane needs to prove he can still perform at the top level.
Click to expand...
With Crouch or Pav upfront we use Bale and Lennon as wingers getting crosses in as often as possible. If that's not working we can use Keane upfront but instead get them running inside into the box and either go for goal, get the ball to feet. They all good players but we need to play to their strengths.
Silent-Lucidity said:
But if he'd have had the op he wouldnt be out with his ankle!! Plus he did his ankle scoring the third on Friday, so shouldnt have played again. Not that I think Spurs will miss him much really.. he's been mostly average this year. He scored 18 league goals last season which on the face of it looks ok, but when u take into account he scored 9 against Hull/Wigan it doesn't look that good.
Click to expand...
Are you being serious?

That's like saying if a player carries on with a broken nose it's his own fault if he breaks his leg? :p

Also he scores a hat-trick aswell as playing some good football and you think Spurs won't miss an on form goal scorer like Defoe with a hectic 2 games a week Prem & CL campaign just starting?

Any more pearls of wisdom?? :D
 
Biz.Kid09 said:
I think i remember reading that they do...
Anyways im sad to see Dawson and Defoe out for such a long time as there both important players for England...
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're wounded 2 very important players for one of your biggest rivals are out for a few months... just like I would be if Hart and Johnson had got the same treatment ;)
 
One More Solo said:
I'm not just singling you out but you people are ****ing morons if you can't tell the difference between the way United bought players and the way the likes of City, Chelsea, Real and Barca have. Until the Glazers came along and buggered everything up, we were entirely self-sufficient. We were able to buy the players we did because we had a sufficient income to do so (and still made a profit every year).

Those other clubs are in debt up to their eyeballs and bankrolled by their owners, and that's despite Real and Barca receiving extremely lucrative TV deals. United undoubtedly spent a lot of money in the past two decades but only the money we had earned through intelligent financial and commercial management.

Furthermore, although we have spent a lot of money this summer it has been spread across several low risk investments. If the likes of Smalling or Chicarito don't make it at the top level, we will almost definitely recoup the initial fee from another club.

Just like Arsenal we have always (pre-Glazer) spent within our means. Is that clear enough for you?
Click to expand...


i think they're just slightly slow.
 
Chong Warrior said:
I'm sure you're wounded 2 very important players for one of your biggest rivals are out for a few months... just like I would be if Hart and Johnson had got the same treatment ;)
Click to expand...

Well from a England fans prospective its sad because there two great players...from a City fans prospective then im happy :p...well its quite funny how we had 6 players in the team and not one got injured but Arsenal had one and he got injured and Spurs had 2? and they got injured lol
 
One More Solo said:
I'm not just singling you out but you people are ****ing morons if you can't tell the difference between the way United bought players and the way the likes of City, Chelsea, Real and Barca have. Until the Glazers came along and buggered everything up, we were entirely self-sufficient. We were able to buy the players we did because we had a sufficient income to do so (and still made a profit every year).

Those other clubs are in debt up to their eyeballs and bankrolled by their owners, and that's despite Real and Barca receiving extremely lucrative TV deals. United undoubtedly spent a lot of money in the past two decades but only the money we had earned through intelligent financial and commercial management.

Furthermore, although we have spent a lot of money this summer it has been spread across several low risk investments. If the likes of Smalling or Chicarito don't make it at the top level, we will almost definitely recoup the initial fee from another club.

Just like Arsenal we have always (pre-Glazer) spent within our means. Is that clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

I understand the difference between City and United yes, I am not retarded, but essentially he's moaning at them spending money, yes it's frustrating that it is money from outside the game, but City's owners are City's owners and the money they're spending is their own and they're not in debt. So it boils down to them spending money, something which Man Utd have been the kings at over the years. If he was moaning at single owners coming in then I'd be fully behind him, he doesn't mention anything to do with that, he is complaining about their expenditure.

Edit - Don't take this as a dig against Man Utd, nobody said they live outside their means or any of this stuff, this is all about how hypocritical and bitter Neville has made himself sound

Also he says he's ok with clubs spending money if they have 'a history' - how elitist is that? How will anybody ever break the repetition of the top clubs unless somebody else has a pop.
 
Last edited:
We all know that UTD spent within their means in the 90s that's not really the point. I mean Neville himself hasn't quite made that distinction clear has he? He's only really had a pop at clubs spending a lot of money, that is, a lot more than their rivals can do. That reason alone is why we're saying he's got double standards. The means (no matter how financially sound or long term) is irrelevant.
 
Utd have been "moneybags utd" since the turn of last century, when they got huge loans to build a stadium bigger than anyone else had, and they've taken out loans afaik, at other times to maintain the stadium advantage.

Fact is all teams buy success, even if it was good business and 100 years ago, it was throwing money at UTD that turned them into the success they are today and that goes for all teams and all success, pretty much the same as, errm, every business, ever, thats life, get over it.

UTd spent 400mil before City had spent £50(using dramatic numbers for effect), now City have spent 500mil in the past few years, and the next rich team will spend £1billion over a few years, this is life, prices of things go up exponentially, and I think we all know who we can blame for that............. Newcastle.

Bergkamp, 7.5mil, Cole, 7 mil, Collymore(borderline) 8.5 mil, Shearer, 15mil :o

Clearly it was Newcastle that started the unhealthy ridiculous leap forwards in transfer fee's.

Actually quite strange, 95 to 2001 the transfer record went from 8.5, to 28.1mil, then from 2001 to 2008, it went from 28.1, to 32.5mil , 7 years and the transfer record barely moved, then in one year, 32.5 to 80mil :p utter madness.
 
One More Solo said:
I'm not just singling you out but you people are ****ing morons if you can't tell the difference between the way United bought players and the way the likes of City, Chelsea, Real and Barca have. Until the Glazers came along and buggered everything up, we were entirely self-sufficient. We were able to buy the players we did because we had a sufficient income to do so (and still made a profit every year).
Click to expand...
Oh give over with the revisionism. Man United got wads of cash by giving into greed and floating themselves on the stock market as a PLC. Perfect timing admittedly, because it gave them the chance to establish themselves as the top team in the country, just as the Premiership started its steady climb upwards, but as much of a cash injection as any oligarch owner. That you got eventually bought up by someone like the Glazers was an inevitable risk you chose to ignore at the time.

I remember all the nonsense Murdoch nearly took over. All that "WE DON'T WANT YOU :mad:" protest. Same with the FC United silliness after the Glazer's buy-ouy. Tough luck. You enjoy that success for almost the entire nineties? This is the risk you gambled on to get it.
 
Last edited:
Chong Warrior said:
Are you being serious?

That's like saying if a player carries on with a broken nose it's his own fault if he breaks his leg? :p

Also he scores a hat-trick aswell as playing some good football and you think Spurs won't miss an on form goal scorer like Defoe with a hectic 2 games a week Prem & CL campaign just starting?

Any more pearls of wisdom?? :D
Click to expand...

On form? When was the last time he scored a league goal? You know as well as i do that we need a top top striker. Defoe is good, not great. He's not a Rooney, Torres, Drogba or Van Persie. With Lennon and Bale on the wings think how many goals those strikers would get in a season. On your first point, if you look at when he scored his third goal against Bulgaria he started to limp, your not telling me it had nothing to do with his injury? We will miss him of course, but not as much as Dawson. God forbid if Bale gets injured. :p
 
drunkenmaster said:
Utd have been "moneybags utd" since the turn of last century, when they got huge loans to build a stadium bigger than anyone else had, and they've taken out loans afaik, at other times to maintain the stadium advantage.

Fact is all teams buy success, even if it was good business and 100 years ago, it was throwing money at UTD that turned them into the success they are today and that goes for all teams and all success, pretty much the same as, errm, every business, ever, thats life, get over it.

UTd spent 400mil before City had spent £50(using dramatic numbers for effect), now City have spent 500mil in the past few years, and the next rich team will spend £1billion over a few years, this is life, prices of things go up exponentially, and I think we all know who we can blame for that............. Newcastle.

Bergkamp, 7.5mil, Cole, 7 mil, Collymore(borderline) 8.5 mil, Shearer, 15mil :o

Clearly it was Newcastle that started the unhealthy ridiculous leap forwards in transfer fee's.

Actually quite strange, 95 to 2001 the transfer record went from 8.5, to 28.1mil, then from 2001 to 2008, it went from 28.1, to 32.5mil , 7 years and the transfer record barely moved, then in one year, 32.5 to 80mil :p utter madness.
Click to expand...

Christ almighty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom