It is you that is clueless - now that Jose is at United their fans think he is no longer a **** like he was at Chelsea !
Again clueless. I will try to explain, Pogba refused to sign a contract (it is currently against the law to hold somebody against their will in England), we never sold him but we did get a development fee for him. Fergie rated him very highly but (like most who saw his 7 first team games) didn't think him ready to be demanding a first team place in his new contract offer. I (and most of the United supporters on here and the ones I know in real life) expect nothing more from Mourinho than he has done in the past. All we want is for him to build a squad capable of competing, after that if he does his usual and forces his way out then fine, thanks for the good times and goodby.
Some of the comments about the Pogba transfer are illogical. Mourinho bought a player who had developed for 4 years at Juventus. It's irrelevant what might have happened had he stayed. Mourinho didn't buy the same player who left. Spurs could have saved £28M by having the foresight to sign Sissoko when Newcastle did. But it wasn't an issue - the club bought a player who was needed now at a price demanded by the current market. Spurs also missed the chance to sign Ronaldo when SAF did. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but there was always Bale. All clubs have a history of good and bad signings. All clubs pick up bargains, pay over the odds, sell at a profit, sell at a loss etc etc. Pogba was signed to meet a current need for a specific player/type of player to fill a position, the fee paid was determined by the market - and value for money has to be assessed against what the player does, the effect on the club's performance (e.g regaining CL place etc), commercial revenues generated, resale value etc etc. The over simplistic approach that so many observers take when commenting undermines their observations. Ronaldo was sold six years ago - in real terms (given the extra money in football now) the fee paid by Real Madrid is probably equivalent to two or three times the amount now. Any comparison with Pogba's fee now is meaningless. As analysts have pointed out, Utd spent around 20% of annual revenue on one player- proportionately less than many clubs spent in this window and much less than comparative transfer fees in years gone by. In relative terms, the transfer is unremarkable - record fee or not. Yes, most other clubs can't pay that for a player - but most other clubs can't pay what Spurs can pay either. Burnley can equally scoff smugly at Spurs and say that the club is profligate in spending money it will never have on Sissoko - but they don't.
G4E is asking about Soldado, I assume you are talking about Falcao. Soldado has reinvented himself as a No10, and doing well in Spain. We ruined him as a goal scorer though.
You're comparing not signing a player with selling one and then buying him back. They're not the same thing, especially when the player only left because a manager played people out of position instead of him. Recalling a retired bloke to keep him out of the side, because you're not bothered about the future, as you won't be there is a legitimate criticism. I don't really care what Utd have spent on Pogba and he may well turn out to be an excellent signing. He's clearly a very good player and Mourinho can't affect the past, so he either buys him for a large fee or doesn't have him. It's still fair to have a go at Utd for ****ing up the progress of a significant youth player, though.
I'm not really sure where to put this, so I'll try putting it here and see what happens. Lillian Thuram recently criticised Nicolas Anelka for his poor attitude and behaviour during his time in the French squad. It was part of a documentary aimed at a successful period for the national side. Anelka has replied with this, via his Facebook page: Is it just me or is that ridiculous and offensive? What a twat.
Did Spurs actually put in a bid for Ronaldo.No chance.He is a pot hunter and will only have gone to a top placed team.Can't blame him.He's been laughing all the way to the bank ever since. Probably thinking about a car boot sale for some of his stuff so he can get back in his garage.....
Pogba left in July 2012 - and it was quite apparent that his agent had fixed up a move to Juventus some considerable period of time earlier and was waiting for his contract to expire. He was only just 19 in the March of 2012. Scholes gave out of retirement in January 2012. He played well in the remainder of that season and scored some crucial goals. Utd won 11 and drew one of the 12 PL games following Scholes' return - and went 8 points clear of title rivals City, before a shock defeat at Wigan, a 4-4 draw with Everton and a loss 0-1 to City themselves handed them the title on goal difference. Two injury time goals for City v QPR in the final game played a part too, you may recall! I'm not sure how SAF can be criticised for bringing back a player who was the catalyst for that winning run ahead of choosing an inexperienced 18 year old, who had clearly made his own decision to leave and whose commitment, therefore, might have been questionable. It was his call to make.
Pogba started making arrangements to leave because Ferguson picked Rafael and Park ahead of him in the midfield. You played Blackburn in the cup during an injury crisis and you lost. He's said that himself. Didn't even get on and he actually used fat Anderson in the second half. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/16324998 Scholes put the final nail in the coffin of his first stint at Utd. Picking Pogba earlier on in the season might've won you the title, kept you in the cup and saved you about £100m. It might not have, of course!
It seemed a very 'un-Ferguson' like decision. He'd never seemed to make short-term decisions before, in fact, he'd always been willing to look 2 or 3 years ahead but it made more sense in relation to the RVP signing, title win and retirement the following season. If anything, it appears slightly selfish from outside but there's always more to these things than the simplistic view from the press and other outsiders. I think he wanted to go out as a winner and Pogba wasn't ready and the timing of his expiring contract meant that a promising youngster took his chance elsewhere. It looks appalling in hindsight but I don't think United underestimated his potential talent.
Yeah, went on to win 4 Serie A titles and become the most expensive player in the world, we really ****ed his progress up (he would probably have been better doing another year in our U21 team)
Utd beat Arsenal 8-2 in the first half of that season with Anderson and Cleverley in midfield (and Park played as a sub). It's easy to think, with hindsight and looking at the colossus Pogba is now, that Pogba was a better option than these players, but he was an 18 year old untried kid. He thought he was ready to play in the first team and orchestrated a move when he didn't get the opportunities he wanted, but it doesn't mean that he was right. There were other midfielders, such as Robbie Brady, Oliver Norwood, Darron Gibson and Ryan Tunnicliffe, who didn't get picked either - presumably because SAF didn't think they were up to it at the time. Gibson was sold at the same time Scholes came out of retirement. Perhaps they would have made a difference if selected, maybe not? SAF was paid to make those calls - and his record is the ace of trumps in any argument about his decision making. The fact that Pogba becomes a huge money signing for the club 4 years later doesn't mean he got it wrong. I accept he didn't get every decision right and it is possible he may have got this one wrong, but your argument is nothing more than speculation.
I meant ****ing up his progress at Man Utd. He clearly wasn't happy with it, which is why he pissed off to Juve.
Gibson was left out because he'd been out on the piss with Rooney, IIRC. Brady's a winger or fullback. Ferguson was thinking short-term, as he knew he was on the way out. I doubt he'd have made the same decision otherwise.
Had you seen him in any of the 7 games he got time in you would know he was far from ready for first team football. The PL was far to fast for him at the time, he looked like what he was, a little boy in the men's league.
He was considered a midfielder then who could play full back (although he didn't until he joined Hull). http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Football-News/2011/Jul/brady-joins-hull.aspx At 20, he was older than Pogba and already an international, so perhaps more likely to be brought back into the squad and considered before him. SAF decided to chose experienced first team players. Why shouldn't he?
