He's not staying there beyond May anyway. All of his previous successes have been premised on arriving at a huge but underperforming club, enjoying a solid if unspectacular 1st season during which he assesses the weak links in the squad, then spends a bottomless pot of gold in Summer 2 for a Season 2 sweepstake, then slowly fade towards a noble farewell in Season 3. Wash, rinse and repeat. Where this formula has gone wrong is that the bottomless pot can no longer solve the weak links. Simply because the weakest link in that united team is currently him.
You made mistakes and can't defend. Entirely believable if you've watched Arsenal play. People in glasshouses, eh?
Never claimed we were a great side nor that we were great at defending. If you actually cared to understand the essence of my comment, instead of getting defensive (not as defensive as your manager, though), you will realise that what I wrote was actually a criticism of Arsenal and their defending, moreso than me having a go at United. I'm sure you're absolutely thrilled with how this season has panned out for you so far. Well done. Seriously. It takes a special type of manager to spend £90m on a midfielder, £75m on a striker and yet look as blunt in attack as you do.
Just seen that United have got Everton away next. I'm sure we are all anticipating an exhilarating, swashbuckling & adventurous display from both teams...
Pogba and Lukaku cost United a lot more than that, mate. UEFA may have chosen to ignore that his agent trousered £41m for his alleged part-ownership of the player but the true cost for Pogba was £130m. Lukaku will cost United £90m with £12m in agent's fees to Raiola on top. How United get away with hiding £68m of 'investment' on those 2 deals is beyond me?
First of all, that should be the minimum expected of your team given how much you spent on reinforcing your attack compared to us. Secondly, most of those goals came at the beginning of the season and have seldom come in the remaining couple of months, one would imagine. Thirdly, you need to factor in the spread of the goals too. For example, two teams score 15 goals across 5 games. Team A scores 7 goals in the first game and 8 goals in the second game, but fail to score in the other 3 games. In contrast, Team B scores 3 goals across every one of those 5 games. Whose attack would you prefer to have and whose would you say is more potent? Context is important.
You seem like a well read chap, I would imagine you know who signed that contract and had to pay the agents fee Not sure about the agents fee for Lukaku but it will be made plain in the next accounts
Did you get yours for free? the cost of players has rocketed in the last 3 years, it doesn't mean you are buying better players, just costlier. Probably the one with the most points. And your point is? Context is important
This is just pure whataboutism. You have a habit of doing this. I shouldn't have bitten the bait, but when the focus in on United, your instinctive response is to ask questions about other teams. No, we didn't get ours for free. Yes, they cost money. But you know full well that the expectations for Manchester United and Arsenal are completely different. If you want to compare spending between the two clubs, there is no comparison to be made. Again, you're deflecting from the question. I asked you specifically about attacking potency, not about points, and you've given a total non-sequitur. You know I am making valid points and you're refusing to acknowledge it.
And I have answered you, only 2 teams have scored more than us so far City and Liverpool, if that means we have no potency in attack then fair enough but I just thing you are chatting without thinking
Southampton reportedly want to use some of the Van Dick windfall to bring Theo Walcott back to St Marys. What will they do with the remaining £74,999,999.50p I wonder?
I addressed everything in this post a couple of posts ago, yet you've chosen to ignore it and repeat the same thing. Either address my post properly or stop replying.
