OK....thought something had happened whilst I was away. I don't want (but half expect) to lose Luke and Adam, but we mustn't lose anyone else.
I think the Times' suggestion of 34m is more reliable than the Mail's suggestion of 40m. 34m would be an outrageously good piece of business for us.
One is a suggestion of what United have bid, and the other is a suggestion of what we've asked for. Both can be right. Also the Mail, despite it being awful in so many ways, doesn't have awful sports reporting.
£25m for me is great business, £34m is desperate business from United, and £40m is just ludicrous all round. He made 1 assist and scored 0 goals last year. He is a talented lad, don't get me wrong, but our team wouldn't be weakened if he left it. That is a lot of money to reinvest into the squad. I say, "Good luck Luke, but thanks for the cash".
The sports reporting isn't on the same level of ridiculous as their news reporting, but it still more than meets the criteria to be called awful. Only a 20% accuracy rate according to that famous study of football gossip pages: http://www.footballtransferleague.co.uk/newspaper_statistics.aspx
How do they measure accuracy? If they report that a team has bid on a player, and that team doesn't end up getting that player, is the report deemed inaccurate?
I know I shouldn't be, but I'm slightly wound up by that Man Utd site. Never likes them at the Dell or SMS and always found the eerie quiet of old Trafford kind of weird, but the arrogance of them really irritates me. I know I should rise above and just ignore them (glory supporters and all that), but finding it tough today. "If Southampton want £40m for him, how much for the whole club? Can't be that much more, can it? http://www.sportingintelligence.com...n-at-42m-whats-your-club-really-worth-250102/ According to this, under £60m. :lol: " This in particular. The link is to site is about 2 years old and doesn't take into account the enormous debts of man utd, so pretty much redundant. The fans seem to think that we are desperate to sell him and have a divine right to any player they desire. What makes it worse is that my nephew is a man utd fan.... (I fear for his future, what will he turn into?) Rant over. Sorry.
There is no obligation on our part to sell Luke for a sensible price. Obviously we want to keep our best players, but imagine the side we could build if we carry on producing occasional players that sell for stupid prices. We could become a seriously rich club...then we would be able to start attracting players that at the moment are reluctant to come here and also keep more of our own players. I think we should register a trade mark, then tattoo all our young players. Then buyers will turn our players over, see SFC on their bums and know that, like goods labelled Tiffany's, Liberty's, or Rolls Royce, they will be paying top dollar.
Yep, if these clubs are stupid enough to throw that kind of money around, let's take them for a ride.
Strongly disagree with the bold part. He was voted into the team of the season by fellow players which suggests teams were worried about him. Managersm obviously felt the need to come up with a plan for him which results in extra space for other players. Despite those best-laid plans, he rarely has a quiet game.
If so, I'm surprised it's that low for the more respectable papers. You don't expect a majority of the Guardian and Telegraph reporting to be basically lies.
It's "rumour accuracy" so I think it's more "team is linked with" than "team has signed", otherwise that's not a rumour.
It is still a rumour if it hasn't been officially confirmed. I don't know if they are lies exactly, if you hear from someone reliable that it will happen then you can be forgiven for believing it, but even if people are sure, transfers can break down for all kinds of reasons.
I read an article last week suggesting Ronald had fallen out with van Gaal and may take an ABU stance with Luke.
